[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13984-14015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SPENDING CONTROL ACT OF 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 692 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4663.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1558


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4663) to amend part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985 to establish discretionary spending limits 
and a pay-as-you-go requirement for mandatory spending, with Mr. 
Boozman (Chairman pro tempore) in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the most important job of the House Committee on the 
Budget which I have the honor of being the Chair is really twofold. 
First is to put together and pass in the House a responsible, realistic 
blueprint to guide the spending and revenue decisions for the Federal 
Government. We did that. We completed a budget over a month ago when 
this Chamber adopted the conference report for the budget for fiscal 
year 2005. Getting a budget is difficult enough. Now comes the second 
part of the job and that is to ensure that you stick to it. Getting the 
budget means that you have been able to get a majority of Members to 
agree on the levels for spending, on the levels for revenues and to 
bring together those very different ideas because, trust me, there is 
no such thing as a perfect budget by any stretch of the imagination. My 
good friend from Florida reminds me of that every once in a while.

                              {time}  1600

  But we do get a document that tries to mold and shape the hopes and 
dreams and the budget priorities for the Nation in a document, and then 
we work to stick to it.
  Since the gentleman from Florida came on the floor, the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, let me say 
something about the House and our ability to stick to that plan. We 
have passed budgets in years past that have been difficult. We have 
dealt with terrorist attacks. We have dealt with a downturn in the 
economy. We have dealt with the need to borrow resources to deal with 
emergencies we never managed. We had to deal with new priorities no one 
had ever heard of, new Departments like Homeland Security; and new 
initiatives such as a global war on terrorism, a war in Iraq, and a war 
in Afghanistan. And I have to tell the Members that in each one of 
those turns, committees have worked together in order to accomplish 
that. There is no doubt that once in a while committees will have 
difficulty coming to agreement on certain priorities and ideas; but 
once we do it, there is general agreement and effort to stick to it. 
And when we talk about sticking to it, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and his committee 
have done an excellent job of sticking to it.
  We have increased spending over the last number of years at a rate 
that has been unprecedented, in many respects because we have had 
unprecedented need, particularly in homeland security, national 
defense, intelligence, and emergencies that we have had to deal with. 
But even the nondefense or nonsecurity accounts have increased at an 
alarming rate, twice the rate of inflation. And so it is no wonder that 
Members will come to the floor from time to time, we saw that debate 
earlier today, and say, look, spending is out of control.
  Unfortunately, we often focus far too much attention and energy on 
just what we call the discretionary appropriation accounts, the 13 
bills that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has to 
shepherd not only through the House floor but also through the Senate 
and to final passage. That process has been difficult. We are behind in 
that process, and I have no doubt the chairman will remind me that 
having this discussion probably puts us even further behind.
  But we are having this debate, nonetheless, because once we have a 
budget, we also want to make sure we stick to it. And that is why an 
enforcement bill has come to the floor.
  I will definitely report to my colleagues that I would much rather 
have this debate after the other body had passed the conference report, 
but they are tied in knots over there across the rotunda on the other 
side of the Capitol. Politics, Presidential elections, all sorts of 
things are tying up all sorts of items in the other body, going to make 
it very difficult for us to pass budgets, appropriations, get judges 
confirmed, all sorts of a myriad of issues that make that difficult.
  As a result of having some difficulty in spending and having 
difficulty in getting a budget through the other body, the third item 
which I want to bring up is huge increases in what we call mandatory 
spending through our Federal Government. Mandatory spending, as most of 
my colleagues know, are those spending initiatives which are on auto 
pilot, meaning we have passed a law to fund a program, and unless we 
change the law, the funding continues. Medicare is probably one of the 
best examples of that. We just had a huge change in Medicare to provide 
a first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors. It costs a lot of 
money, though, and that has grown much faster as a result than even 
many of the discretionary accounts.
  So as a result, there are Members who come to the floor frustrated by 
the increases in spending, frustrated because there are times when the 
budget is not followed, and thinking that if we change the process on 
how we achieve the budget or if we change the process on how we discuss 
appropriation bills, that will solve everything. And I am part of that 
camp from time to time.
  But I must remind all of us before we start this debate that when 
everything is said and done here today, it still comes down to how we 
vote. One can blame the process. One can blame the budget. One can 
blame the Committee on Appropriations. One can blame individual 
Members. One can blame past administrations. One can blame current 
administrations. But no matter what one blames, they had better look in 
the mirror today before they come down here to vote on anything and 
realize that spending increases when Members vote to increase spending.

[[Page 13985]]

  And already the appropriation bills that we have seen cross this 
floor have had huge majorities, huge majorities, for very valid 
increases, in defense and intelligence, other issues that have come 
before our body. Why? Because the need is there. So those Members who 
come to the floor today and say let us blame the process or let us 
blame the procedure or let us blame another committee also need to take 
their fair share of the responsibility for how the process runs.
  I believe that we need discipline, and we need enforcement of a 
budget once we get it. That requires what we used to have in this body, 
and that is caps in PAYGO. Caps in PAYGO, statutory caps in PAYGO, I 
believe, are necessary because it gives the force of law to what we 
have done. It makes sure that all three entities, the President; the 
Senate, the other body; and the House, are all together when the 
discussion occurs on spending, when the discussion occurs on taxes, 
when the discussion occurs on mandatory or entitlement increases. It 
ensures that everybody is there because we are all in this together. We 
cannot do one without the other. We cannot say it is only the 
Congress's prerogative because the President has to sign the check, he 
has got to sign the bill if, in fact, that is what he agrees to.
  But it starts here in a process called the budget, called the 
appropriations process, and called the authorization process. So in 
order for us to deal with this, we are asking that the body today 
consider capping spending at the rate we just passed in the budget 
resolution, and just for 2 years, do not bind another Congress, just 
for these 2 years, and to also for really the first time address 
mandatory spending and its out-of-control nature by applying what we 
used to apply and that is pay-as-you-go to entitlements or mandatory 
spending. We believe this will help us. It will not be the be all and 
end all because there are still emergencies; there are still other ways 
that Congress spends money outside of that process. But this is one of 
the ways that we found in the 1990s to help ensure that spending 
control could occur.
  Members are going to come to the floor with different opinions, and I 
respect those opinions. There is no question that people have a variety 
of ideas on how we should do this. But I would ask each and every one 
of them to remember that this is about each and every one of us, as 
Members, what our priorities are and how we vote. We cannot give that 
to another process. Nothing we do here today given to another process 
will, in and of itself, stop the madness of increases in spending that 
have been what many Members believe are out of control. The only way, 
when everything is said and done, is to cast our vote to control 
spending, and that is done in the individual processes of the bills 
that we consider here on the floor.
  So we believe this is a work product worth consideration. There will 
be amendments to consider changes in the budget process and the 
appropriations process in order to help get a handle on spending 
concerns and on mandatory spending. But as I say, when everything is 
said and done, we have got to have a budget, we have got to enforce it, 
and we have got to vote that way on each and every bill in order for 
spending to be controlled.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The Chair would remind 
Members to refrain from improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us, H.R. 4663, the Spending 
Control Act of 2004, causes me to say to my friends across the aisle, 
and I cannot help but take a little jab at them, our Republican friends 
control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White 
House. Why can they not control spending? And will this bill make a 
difference?
  I ask that question because there is a particular irony about this 
bill. This is a budget enforcement bill, but there is no budget to 
enforce. For the first time since 1974 when the Budget Act was first 
adopted, the party that controls both branches of the government, the 
Congress and the White House, is unable to get its act together and 
pass a budget. And now they propose new rules to the budget process if 
they cannot comply with the rules we have got.
  This bill before us is hardly a consensus bill. There is a lot of 
dissension about it even as it comes to the floor. When it was filed, 
28 amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules to change it. All 
but one of those amendments, which is my amendment, focused solely on 
spending as the source, the cause of the deficit that we are incurring 
today. We are supposed to have a deficit this year of over $521 
billion. The prognosis has gotten a bit better, but it looks like it 
will be at least 430 to $450 billion, 1 year, a half trillion dollars. 
Only my substitute deals with the other side of the problem, and that 
is revenues.
  Two rules of all the rules we will see today, two rules that stood 
the test of time, they have worked. They have helped us wipe out 
deficits. They did in the 1990s. One rule caps discretionary spending 
at fixed levels over the next 5 years. That was the rule that we put in 
effect in 1990, extended in 1993, and again in 1997; and it helped us 
balance the budget for the first time in 40 years. The other rule is 
what we call the pay-as-you-go rule, which requires us to pay as we go, 
that is, to offset new tax cuts and new entitlement increases by new 
revenues or by equal spending cuts so that they do not add to the 
deficit, pay-as-you-go, discretionary spending caps.
  As I said, the base bill and all the amendments except mine focus 
entirely on spending and not at all on tax cuts as the source of the 
problem. Yet if we look at the period 2002 through 2011, the 10-year 
period that covers the first 4 years of the Bush administration, $2.3 
trillion of our total fiscal reversal during that period has been 
caused by substantial tax cuts and related debt service; and that 
revenue deficit grows as tax cuts that expire are renewed and new tax 
cuts are adopted, as the Bush administration proposes and pushes for 
more.
  This bill promises deficit reduction; but it ignores the elephant in 
the room, one of the chief causes now and well into the future, and 
that is the deficit in revenues.
  Do we have a problem? You bet we have a problem. In the last 3 years 
of the Clinton administration, I remind everybody, we ran surpluses for 
the first time in 30 to 40 years. We paid off $400 billion in debt. In 
the first 4 years of the Bush administration, Congress has had to raise 
the statutory ceiling on the national debt three times, three times in 
4 years, to accommodate President Bush's budget. Congress raised the 
ceiling by $450 billion in 2002; by $984 billion in 2003; and shortly, 
the process is already under way here, by $650 billion this year. In 
all of the last 4 years by $2.1 trillion in order to accommodate Mr. 
Bush's fiscal policy.
  And these increases in the statutory debt ceiling are by no means 
over. They are part of a series. The Congressional Budget Office told 
us last March, when they examined the President's budget, that if we 
implemented, if we enacted that budget, the President's budget, we 
would have to raise the debt ceiling to $13.5 trillion in the year 
2014. Not my number. It is the number of the Congressional Budget 
Office, which is a neutral, nonpartisan arm of the Congress.
  So we have a problem; but this bill, unfortunately, does not deal 
with it. It takes off in pursuit of red herrings and Draconian 
solutions that will not work, if they were ever enacted; and I doubt 
they will be enacted. It trots out almost every budget process idea 
that has ever been thought of, but the two that have worked, the two 
rules that have worked so well that, as I said, we moved the budget 
from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a surplus of $236 billion in 
1998.

                              {time}  1615

  One is a double-edge PAYGO rule that requires both tax cuts and 
entitlement increases to be deficit neutral; and the other is 
discretionary spending

[[Page 13986]]

caps over 5 years. They do not work unless you extend them out for some 
period of time. The caps in the base bill only go out for 2 years and 
are set to boot at unrealistically low levels. They are lower than the 
President's request, yet they provide more for transportation. I think 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will tell you if he talks about 
the appropriations bind he is in right now, he cannot take much more 
reduction in the allocation of discretionary spending than we have 
already given him.
  So we have got here a set of proposals that simply do not address the 
problem at hand, which is a substantial problem, except for one 
particular provision. All I am calling for and all I would recommend 
the House would do, but it would be a good day's work if we did it, is 
go back and reinstate the PAYGO rule, which worked so well in the 
1990s; reinstate the 5-year spending caps, which worked so well in the 
1990s; and then we can get to work on balancing the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me time, especially since he knows that I disagree with his 
package. But he also is a fair player, because he understands that the 
Committee on Rules did not give the Committee on Appropriations any 
time under this rule. That is strange, inasmuch as the Committee on 
Appropriations will be affected more than any other committee in the 
House based on what happens here today. Even so, we were given no time 
under the rule. But I voted for the rule, just to keep the process 
going.
  I want to say again, as I did earlier this morning, we need a budget. 
We need budget caps. And I have said that in defense of resolutions 
presented by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) on numerous 
occasions. As chairman, I need the budget caps to have the discipline 
in committee to keep spending from running wild. As a matter of fact, 
last year the Committee on Appropriations denied $18 billion worth of 
amendments that would have increased spending.
  But I do not appreciate his package. I think we do need budget 
process reform, and I cannot describe everything that I think needs to 
be done in the 2 minutes I have left. What I suggest is in an amendment 
I offered but was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. What we 
need is a commission or committee, bipartisan and bicameral, of this 
Congress, to sit down and thoroughly study the problems and make a 
recommendation, without regard to politics, without regard to this 
person or that person or somebody else. This Committee would make a 
recommendation to the Congress as to what budget process will work.
  Now, the one main reason that I am opposed to the budget process bill 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is, first of all, it 
has multiyear caps. When it was first reported, it had 5-year multiyear 
caps with no numbers. No numbers. We were going to set 5-year caps, but 
with no numbers.
  Well, as of last night, a decision was made to change that bill and 
make it 2-year caps with numbers. At one point I was promised that my 
committee could have some input into what those numbers would be. I did 
not hear what the numbers were until I read it in Congress Daily 
yesterday morning. I think that we deserved a little more consideration 
than that.
  But the big concern is statutory caps, which is what this package 
presents. Statutory caps are different than caps set by a concurrent 
resolution. Statutory caps would bring the executive branch into the 
mix of setting a budget. That is not the role of the executive branch 
of government.
  The Constitution provides for separation of powers. The Constitution 
gives the responsibility of spending, financial matters, to the 
Congress. The President gets his chance when the appropriations bills 
are sent to him and he has an opportunity to veto.
  But statutory caps would mean that the executive branch, OMB, would 
be up here every day saying, no, we will not accept these caps, or we 
will veto these caps. That puts the executive branch in the driver's 
seat when it comes to setting our budget caps, and that is just not 
right.
  For that reason alone, I cannot support this package today, although 
I recognize my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has worked 
very hard. We do not have a budget this year. In the House we have a 
deemed budget, but the process did not work because the other body 
cannot get their act together on a budget.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has done a good job in getting 
that budget, and we are working under his budget. The gentleman has 
worked hard under difficult procedures; and he is right, the budget 
process needs to be changed. But it ought to be changed only after very 
serious thought and consideration.
  I really am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make my 
amendment in order that would have created a bipartisan, bicameral 
committee or commission of this Congress to thoroughly study, and, in a 
serious, sincere way, recommend what our budget process ought to be.
  I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for the hard work 
he does and for the time he gave me. The gentleman has an extremely 
difficult job. I agree with the gentleman a lot of the time. Sometimes 
I do not; but we are still friends.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The Chair would remind 
Members to refrain from improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, for the first time since 1974, it appears that Congress 
will not adopt a budget when the same political party controls the 
House, the Senate, and the White House. In other words, in 28 years we 
have not been in this position of not being able to pass a budget.
  Why can the Republican majority not fulfill one of the most basic 
tests of effective government, adopting a budget? Because they cling to 
the fiction that we can rein in record deficits and runaway debt by 
applying pay-as-you-go budget rules to mandatory spending only. They do 
this as they preside over record budget deficits, and, just this week, 
trying to hide a $690 billion increase in the debt ceiling in the rule 
on the Defense appropriation bill.
  As the New York Times stated this morning, applying PAYGO rules to 
spending, but not taxes, is ``like swearing off demon rum while 
continuing to binge on vodka martinis.'' Even some Republicans reject 
this dilution, to wit, four Members of the other body.
  Earlier this year, my friend, the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, whom I have so much respect for, speaking for our 
committee, but more, much more, importantly, speaking for fiscal 
responsibility, said, ``No one should expect significant deficit 
reduction as a result of austere, non-defense discretionary spending 
limits. The numbers simply do not add up.'' The chairman was right.
  The fact is, we could eliminate all nondefense discretionary 
spending, and we would still be running deficits of more than $100 
billion. That is how much we put our country into the red.
  Perhaps the height of irony, perhaps the height of irony, is that 
just 7 years ago, in 1997, 193 Republicans voted for a pay-as-you-go 
affecting spending and revenues, or taxes. That included the gentleman 
from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), who voted for PAYGO affecting both; 
the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the 
conference chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce); the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Chairman Nussle); and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas). And the Bush 
administration itself endorsed pay-as-you-go

[[Page 13987]]

rules affecting both revenues and expenditures in 2002, 2003, and 2004.
  I have here next to me the language of the fiscal 2002 budget. I hope 
it is on the screen. The Bush administration endorsed it, as you can 
see, affecting both spending and tax legislation. In fact, I will 
quote. It states: ``The President also proposes to extend the PAYGO 
requirement for entitlement spending and tax legislation.''
  Why? Because he knew you could not do what you say you can do. And 
for 3 years he stuck to that principle. This is the first year he has 
not.
  I would hope that those who believe in fiscal responsibility would 
vote for this Democratic substitute, which would restore the original 
PAYGO rules adopted in 1990 that apply to mandatory spending and taxes 
as they were originally established on a bipartisan basis, as we did in 
1997 when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and I both voted for a 
balanced budget proposal, which, in fact, was very helpful in assuring 
that balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think we ought to let our majority colleagues 
get away with this charade. Do not let them preen as deficit hawks, as 
some of you perceive yourselves to be, and not apply discipline to both 
expenditures and revenues.
  I tell my colleagues, it is oh, so easy. I have been in a legislative 
body for 35 years, and every year I have found it so easy to vote for 
tax reductions, but so difficult to vote for cuts in spending.
  Let us have discipline. Vote for this substitute. Do not pretend your 
PAYGO has any effect.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget for yielding me time, and I thank him for bringing this 
resolution to the floor.
  What we are talking about in this resolution is not so much budget 
process reform, although we will have an opportunity through various 
amendments to get into that issue. What we are talking about here is 
enforcing the budget we have.
  I think what the Committee on the Budget reported out and what is 
before us on the floor today is the right way to do it, and that is 
putting a cap on discretionary spending and having PAYGO apply to 
mandatory.
  I was going to talk a little about the importance of growing the 
economy to our budget, but I think we have really gone over that in the 
previous debate. Instead, let me talk for a minute about what my friend 
from Maryland was just saying with regard to tax relief.
  If in 2001 we had applied PAYGO to the tax relief, which was in 
effect, by the way, we would not have the economy we have today. That 
is what I believe. I believe that the economic growth we have seen over 
the last year, and remember now, we have added 1.4 million jobs to our 
economy in the last 9 months, we have the best growth in 20 years; we 
are the envy of the entire industrialized world; we are growing jobs; 
we are increasing wages; we are seeing real growth, which is resulting 
in higher revenues, which is why CBO is going to come back later this 
year and tell us our deficit is not as big this year as they thought it 
was going to be, because more revenue is coming in. If we had PAYGO on 
taxes in 2001 and applied it, we would not have put the tax breaks in 
place. That is my belief.
  Second, there is a bias in our system right now. Think about it. With 
regard to spending, the gentleman said it is hard for him to vote for 
cuts in spending. It is not hard for any of us to vote for increases in 
spending. We do it all the time. Then it becomes a baseline. Then, in 
terms of the budgetary consequence, it continues, forever.
  There is no budgetary consequence once an appropriation, an 
authorization, expires; but there is when tax relief expires. When tax 
relief expires, there is a budgetary consequence.
  We have to find a way to account for it. That is a bias within our 
system. And to add PAYGO to both would, therefore, be unfair, both 
because the tax cuts, unlike spending, add directly to economic growth. 
And it is incredibly important, we can have that debate without having 
the PAYGO, but have that debate, an honest debate. Second is the fact 
that in our current system, let us face it, there is a bias right now 
in favor of spending.
  I thank, again, the chairman for bringing this to the floor. I think 
it is a responsible approach to just enforcing the budget we have, to 
be sure the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations can do his job, 
and do it well.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds it the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, had I had the time, I would have simply 
asked, why did the gentleman vote for this in 1997?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) to respond.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 10 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is 
recognized for 15 seconds.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman two things. 
Number one, at that time we were working on a bipartisan basis to try 
to get a balanced budget agreement through the Congress, which we did 
support. We wanted a cap on spending, you wanted it on taxes, and we 
came up with a compromise in order to get that 1997 balanced budget 
agreement through, which was a good agreement in the sense that it 
restrained spending. That part of it was good, and the economy grew; 
and I think we should learn from that.
  Today, what we are trying do again is to get this economy growing and 
restrain spending through these caps. That is the key.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to remind the 
gentleman that we have 1.3 million fewer jobs today than we had on 
March 1, 2001 at the beginning of the Bush administration. First 
amendment, first recession since the end of the Second World War with 
that result.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, if I can purport to get into the heads of the majority 
and answer that question for myself for a minute, I think it is fairly 
basic. I would guess, Mr. Chairman, the reason is about 5, 6 years ago 
there was an overwhelming consensus in this body that we apply PAYGO to 
both tax and spending for a very simple reason. It is good common 
sense. It is only basic fairness.
  If I can, Mr. Chairman, let me make this point. This sounds like a 
very esoteric debate to a lot of people who are listening right now. Do 
we apply PAYGO to revenues? Do we apply PAYGO to spending? And there is 
a certain technical-sounding aspect to it.
  There is a way to cut to the chase and make this a whole lot simpler. 
Who do we make bear the brunt of discipline and sacrifice in this 
country? It is very clear after listening to a lot of the very able 
adversaries on the other side of the aisle that they are not terribly 
interested in asking but a few people to sacrifice in this country. 
They are only interested in seeking to impose discipline on but a few 
of us, and they in the name of tax cuts would seal off a whole portion 
of our population, namely people who are receiving huge tax cuts 
because of their income, from the brunt and burden of sacrifice.
  This is what we ought to understand today. We may argue about all 
kinds of aspects of the Clinton years, but they were enormously 
successful in bringing this economy back, creating jobs and leading us 
into surplus.
  These facts are indisputable. When William Jefferson Clinton left the 
White House, we had a surplus of $122 billion. Today as George W. Bush 
submits himself to the country for re-election, we have a deficit of 
around $500 billion. If any CEO in America had gone from having that 
kind of surplus to that kind of a deficit in 4 years, his contract 
would absolutely not be renewed. This is a fundamental question

[[Page 13988]]

of how fair we are as a people. Are we fairer now than we were four 
years ago?
  And I would submit that it is fundamentally wrong and fiscally 
irresponsible to only ask people who do not have certain influence, who 
do not have a certain voice in this society to bear the brunt.
  So the reality is if we decide, we are going to apply these PAYGO 
rules, there ought to be a very simple test, Mr. Chairman, number one, 
what would bring us closer to fiscal soundness and, number two, what 
provides for fairness. It is only fair and only reasonable that we do 
what an overwhelming majority of the Republicans wanted to do 5 years 
ago. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we can 
somehow make these rules work, then we will be back on the way to 
fiscal stability in this country.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest to the gentleman from 
Maryland who raised the question about 1997, there is a big difference 
between imposing PAYGO on the revenue side in 1997 versus doing so 
today, and the big difference is doing it in 1997 did not result 
necessarily in a big tax increase. Doing it today, as the minority 
party would like to do, would absolutely result in a huge tax increase 
because of the provisions in the Senate. That is a big difference. A 
huge tax increase versus not having a huge tax increase is a big 
difference.
  Let me just say, I congratulate our chairman and the members of the 
committee who got this bill to this point on the floor. It is so 
important that we find a way to control and limit the growth in 
spending for a number of reasons, as this bill does, but I think that 
one of the main reasons is it is just so fundamentally important and 
incumbent upon us to be adopting policies that allow the American 
people to maximize economic growth and prosperity, opportunity for 
themselves, for their wages to grow and their standard of living to 
improve. That is what we ought to be all about.
  Well, the empirical evidence is very clear that one of the greatest 
threats to that kind of prosperity comes from excessive government 
intervention in the economy. The government intervenes and threatens 
economic growth in lots of ways, but the two biggest ways that the 
government does that is through excessive government spending and 
excessive taxes.
  On the spending side, I think we ought to acknowledge that on the 
margin, excessive growth spending results in less economic growth. That 
is what happens. It is because the government essentially misallocates 
capital.
  Let us face it. When we are here in Washington spending money, what 
we are doing is allocating capital based on political needs. Members of 
Congress tend to vote to spend money on that which they think will help 
them get reelected. That does not make us bad people. That is the 
natural tendency of a represented body. That is what governments do. 
But what it means, this political self-preservation, what it ends up 
meaning is that the excess spending of other people's money, by the 
way, might maximize incumbent retention, but it certainly does not 
maximize economic growth. And I think that is what we ought to be all 
about here.
  In fact, the tendency is forever more government spending. We see 
that now we are spending over 20 percent of GDP; whereas, just 3 years 
ago it was only 18 percent. We have got larger deficits now. The 
government is growing faster than the economy. All the things point in 
the same direction. We need some limits on spending growth. That is 
what this is all about.
  Let us keep in mind that the caps that we have on discretionary 
spending in this bill, the PAYGO provision that we have on mandatory 
spending, there is no spending cuts. Nothing is cut. Frankly, I would 
like to cut some spending. I wish there were, but there is not.
  And we all know that there is no guarantee that the caps will even 
hold. If we could get them passed and signed into law, you know, 
Congress usually has a way of busting the caps, but what they do and 
the important role that they can play is they help on the margin to 
provide a break on the rate of growth of spending, and that is what is 
so important.
  I mentioned the other big way in which government intervention harms 
economic growth, and that is excessive taxes. And there is just no 
question. The evidence is overwhelming. And the good news is that when 
we have taken the measures of lowering the tax burden as we did, if we 
can make those tax cuts permanent, we can continue to enjoy the 
tremendous economic growth that is underway right now.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject the Democratic substitute and 
support this underlying bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is one fine exercise in utter budget 
hypocrisy. The crowd in charge of this House has failed to produce a 
budget. We have no budget agreement with the Senate, it remains 
deadlocked in conference committee, and now they direct us to spend an 
afternoon on the floor in this charade of an exercise in budget 
responsibility.
  The budget debate has been something to watch. It has been 
contentious, it has been mean, it has turned personal, and that is just 
between the Republicans. They control the White House, they control the 
House, they control the Senate, and they have not produced a budget. No 
party has had solid control of all three points of power and not 
produced a budget in years and years and years.
  Yet, rather than resolve that naughty little issue of not having a 
budget, they come to the floor and preen about with this budget 
enforcement resolution. It is a joke.
  If on the face of it, it was not ridiculous already, just look behind 
the circumstances, briefly. The people who have brought this to the 
floor are the people who have pushed this country deeply into deficits, 
spiraling deficits that have forced us to increase the national 
borrowing limit of our Nation twice because we have hit the credit 
limit of the United States of America. Yesterday they put one in, and 
this week they have put a place-holder in to raise it yet a third time, 
bringing debt borrowing authority to over $8 trillion. We are screaming 
in red ink, and they cannot get a budget.
  Secondly, they bring a sham PAYGO requirement up that has nothing to 
do with revenues. Can my colleagues imagine a family trying to get a 
hold of their finances saying, honey, we have to cut back on the 
expenses, but because we do not count the revenue side, I am going to 
half-time at work because I do not want to put in so many hours.
  Of course you cannot balance a budget without looking at spending, 
without looking at revenue, but that is expressly prohibited under 
their PAYGO requirement. This is a sham. It is an embarrassment to this 
House. Reject it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is an important debate that we are having today, I think one that 
cuts across party lines, it cuts across generational lines, this issue 
of fiscal responsibility, and really keeping our word, keeping our 
commitment to a process that was put in place 30 years ago with the 
creation of the Committee on the Budget, with the commitment to control 
spending, to send forward a blueprint of priorities for the Federal 
Government, and then follow through on it.
  Many people would be amazed to know, and if we could, please pull up 
chart 16; many people would be amazed to know that two-thirds of the 
Federal budget is on auto pilot. It is on auto pilot. Only one-third of 
the budget is subject to annual review, change that leads to a debate 
that leads to a vote that all of us are then held accountable for 
through the regular appropriations process. But two-thirds of the 
budget

[[Page 13989]]

continues to grow year after year, really without direct input from the 
Committee on Appropriations or from the Congress as a whole. That is 
not good, long-term fiscal policy.
  The programs within mandatory spending are worthwhile. They are 
important, but they are not so important that they should be exempt 
from congressional review. And as we move through this debate, and it 
is going to be a long debate, but it is an important debate; as we move 
through this, it is a healthy process for us to move forward with 
reform efforts that bring that two-thirds back under the control of the 
Congress and let us exert the control and take the responsibility that 
we were hired to take on.
  I applaud our chairman and the distinguished Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations for working through these issues and having 
this important discussion about retaking congressional responsibility 
for the fiscal future of this country.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Let me tell my colleagues what James Madison from Virginia said. 
James Madison, who is called the Father of the Constitution, devoted 
five Federalist papers to an explanation of how the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches were to be wholly independent of each 
other, yet this bill would enable the President to determine what this 
Congress does. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, said, ``The 
accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in 
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, may justly be 
pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''
  Madison believed the preservation of liberty depends on the 
separation of powers. He said, ``Its several constituent parts may, by 
their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their 
proper places.''
  This bill does not keep each body in its proper place. This bill, in 
essence, says we will save the Congress from itself. Let us save us, 
and not have the President decide.
  Lastly, George Washington, the Father of our country in his Farewell 
Address, spoke of the ``love of power and the proneness to abuse which 
predominates in the human heart'' and warned of the ``necessity of 
reciprocal checks of political power, by dividing and distributing it 
into different depositories and constituting each the guardian against 
invasions by the others.''
  This basically is an invasion of the executive branch. I love 
President Bush. I pray for President Bush every single night. I want 
President Bush to be successful, but we ought not give authority and 
power to any branch. This should be held by the Congress.
  For that reason, and for Madison, Monroe, Washington, and Jefferson, 
I ask for a no vote on this bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, spending discipline 
is needed and it is needed now. The time for talk is over. We have to 
focus on a basic budget problem, and that is spending. America cannot 
spend its way out of our deficit. Real action is needed, and the Nussle 
resolution demonstrates Congress's commitment to protecting America's 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, we had a budget here in the 
committee and on the floor, and that budget helped to combat the 
deficit, cut back on the deficit. It is amazing that those same people 
on the other side of the aisle who say that they care so much about the 
deficit, so many of them did not vote in favor of it.
  This resolution guarantees that we will win the budget battle. It 
reinstates spending controls with the force of law and ensures that 
Congress will stay the course in promoting a fiscally responsible 
budget.

                              {time}  1645

  There are some fears that by adopting this resolution Congress will 
turn its back on those most in need. What a great opportunity for 
opportunists to engage in frightening discourse trying to frighten our 
most vulnerable people. Obviously, this is very untrue.
  First of all, we have always made funding for various groups, whether 
it be veterans or seniors, a top priority. Number two, we fought for 
these on very often a bipartisan level in the past and will continue to 
fight for them. Number three, will we have to make some tough decisions 
if spending caps are imposed? Absolutely. We will have more domestic 
spending, and maybe we will spend a little bit less on some of the 
countries that we give foreign aid to who turn their backs on us when 
we need them.
  Our country needs a practical remedy to the deficit crisis. And this 
bill is the right solution at the right time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Republican pay-as-you-
go proposal makes no fiscal sense. Leaving revenues out of the picture 
is like trying to fill a bucket with a gaping hole in it. It simply 
will not work.
  We did it right in 1990 when Congress and the President came together 
on a bipartisan basis and undertook a courageous effort to balance the 
Federal budget. Integral to this effort was a real pay-as-you-go rule 
that controlled both spending and tax cuts. The result was budget 
discipline that worked, and eventually the first budget surplus in 
decades.
  Deficits are not caused by discretionary spending alone or by 
entitlement spending alone or by revenue shortfalls alone. All three 
elements contribute. And it is folly to pretend that fiscal balance can 
be attained without addressing all three.
  Mr. Chairman, we could cut every last dime of domestic discretionary 
spending; we could eliminate funding for education, highways, health 
research, veterans health care, the environment and all the rest of the 
domestic discretionary budget and we would still run a deficit. Why? 
Because we have enacted trillions of dollars in tax cuts mainly 
benefiting our country's wealthiest people. And we have not paid for 
them.
  The President and this Congress have defied the budget rules. They 
have abandoned fiscal sanity. The result is deficits now approaching 
$500 billion a year. And far from correcting this folly, this 
Republican budget reform bill would actually codify it.
  This bill is a sham. I know it. My colleagues know it. The leadership 
of this Chamber knows it. And soon the American people will know it 
too.
  Vote ``no'' on the Republicans' leaky bucket; vote ``yes'' on the 
Spratt substitute.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
appreciate his great work on this issue. I will tell my colleagues that 
the problem of spending in democracies is nothing new. It is not 
endemic to America. Churchill once said, ``There is nothing so easily 
learned by one government from the last government as spending other 
people's money.'' Indeed, spending other people's money is a very 
intoxicating experience.
  Our Democratic friends say that PAYGO applications, finding the money 
as you go, ought to apply equally to tax cuts as they do to spending. I 
have got two reasons why that is so true. In the first place, according 
to Americans for Tax Reform, the average Floridian, where I represent, 
has to work until July 8 this year to pay for his or her share of 
Federal, State, local taxation and regulation. I think our Democratic 
friends would like every Floridian to have to work until August 8 every 
year to pay for their fair share of the government burden.
  Secondly, what our Democratic friends do not understand is that 
spending is too high, but taxes are not too low.
  The other last point I would make about applying PAYGO equally to tax 
cuts is this: if we had dynamic scoring where people could estimate the 
actual effects of the tax burden on people, it

[[Page 13990]]

might be a reasonable idea. Our Democratic friends think if we trim the 
taxes on something like we did in the case of the luxury tax, we will 
get 300 percent of the revenue. What we really did was put people out 
of business, put people more on welfare.
  On the other hand, in 1986 the Congress cut the capital gains tax 
from 28 percent to 20 percent, Federal revenues doubled.
  Mr. Chairman, the time now is to restrain ourselves. The chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget and the entire committee have done a great 
job. I applaud them for their efforts.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am obviously opposed to this 
irresponsible bill. We had some debate on May 12 when we first took up 
the budget resolution; and as hard as we listened, we never really got 
an adequate explanation for why in 1997 the Chair of the Committee on 
the Budget, and virtually all House Republicans voted for what is now 
the Democratic alternative. That was a responsible approach.
  But now they are suggesting that the budget can be balanced with only 
a one-sided approach, which we continually explain is impossible to do. 
Even if you eliminate all nonmilitary domestic discretionary spending, 
we would not come close to balancing the budget.
  So are we really talking about balancing the budget, or are we 
talking about another agenda? I am afraid the agenda is being driven by 
the right wing of the Republican Party, who would just as soon 
eliminate all domestic discretionary spending, Head Start, school lunch 
programs, health research, you name it; it should be on the cutting 
block as far as they are concerned. That is not what this country 
wants. It is not what this country deserves.
  Thanks to the Republicans' tax cuts, revenues have plunged now to the 
lowest level of GDP since 1950. And over the last 3 years, revenue has 
declined 12 percent. And yet we are suggesting that we leave the 
revenue side of the budget alone? That is nonsense. You cannot do it 
when you combine the administration's out-of-control spending with this 
decline in revenue. The result is a budget deficit that is expected to 
reach half a trillion dollars this year and will reach $4.5 trillion of 
deficit over the next decade. That is a realistic number. That is the 
direction in which you are driving us. It is wrong.
  The first President Bush understood that we have got to have balanced 
PAYGO rules. He was in favor of the Democratic approach. The Federal 
Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, said we have got to approach both 
sides of the budget, the revenue side and the spending side. But yet we 
are going to ignore the experts, we are going to go ahead with this 
right wing ideological agenda, and our children are the ones who are 
going to pay the price for it.
  I call on my colleagues to defeat this resolution, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the leadership of 
this Congress for tonight's debate of this budget resolution that will 
be tough and real and a discussion of meaningful reforms. And they are 
timely, and they are timeless.
  In the year 55 B.C., Cicero wrote, ``The national budget must be 
balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the 
authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign 
governments must be reduced, if the Nation does not want to go 
bankrupt.''
  Real Federal spending today is at its highest level per person since 
World War II. And despite the conservative instincts of many of our 
appropriators in this Congress, the current budget process adopted by a 
liberal Democratic Congress in 1974 was designed for one purpose and 
one purpose only: to guarantee the growth of the Federal Government. 
And that Big Government Democratic spending scheme has worked like a 
charm for 30 years. In a word, Mr. Chairman, it is not the 
appropriators; it is the appropriation process.
  So let us gather tonight in that spirit, to focus on the changes that 
will give our spending committee the tools that they need to do what 
Republicans came to Washington to do, to practice fiscal 
responsibility, to put our fiscal house in order and achieve a balanced 
Federal budget. And the stakes could not possibly be higher.
  Abraham Lincoln said, and I quote, ``If we do not make common cause 
to save the good old ship of the Union on this voyage, nobody will have 
a chance to pilot her on another.''
  Let us get behind these resolutions, these changes in this budget 
process; let us engage in the debate and serve the public's interest in 
the best way that a Republican Congress knows how, through fiscal 
discipline, through real reform.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
most fiscally irresponsible Republican budget enforcement bill. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are right on one thing, this 
Congress does need to control the outrageous budget deficit that is 
fast approaching $500 billion. However, if we want to make serious 
progress in reducing this deficit, PAYGO rules must be applied to 
spending and tax cuts. Exempting tax cuts from these budget enforcement 
rules makes no fiscal sense. Additionally, it threatens to increase the 
deficit and the burden on our children and our grandchildren; the one 
that they will have to bear is unfathomable if we do not act 
responsibly today.
  The original PAYGO rules passed by Congress and signed by the first 
President Bush were essential to restoring this country's fiscal health 
the last time we faced record deficits. Those rules worked because they 
applied it to both sides of the equation, spending and tax cuts.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about 
fiscal responsibility, they would be offering a PAYGO proposal that 
applies it to entitlement program spending as well as tax cuts. Failing 
to apply PAYGO rules to tax cuts is little more than a smoke screen 
that seeks to hide the major contributing factor of this Nation's 
growing deficit.
  As this country faces record deficits in increased spending on 
homeland security and the war in Iraq, now is the time for fiscal 
discipline.
  When I was a freshman, the thing I was most proud of, the issues I 
was most proud of serving were that we had a good surplus, we had low 
unemployment, and we had a good budget.
  This is a shame to all of us that are here. We ought to act 
responsibly on a bipartisan basis and come up with a decent budget 
proposal that not only affects spending but tax cuts as well.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, Members, I have been listening to this 
debate, and I would like to distill as best I can the arguments against 
this bill that we are debating today.
  The first one seems to be that it is not tough enough, that it does 
not include the ability for immediate tax increases. And if that is 
your reason, that is fine. Go ahead and vote against this.
  The other one I think is much more complicated. I want to talk about 
that for a moment, and that is the separation-of-powers argument in the 
Constitution. Members, nothing in this bill today changes the 
constitutional powers that we in the Congress and the executive branch 
have. The President of the United States would still have the power to 
veto any appropriation bill or the budget bill. It simply brings the 
President and the Congress, both bodies in the Congress, together 
earlier so that we work on a common blueprint.
  Imagine, if you will, just for a moment in this great structure, if 
we had the masons using one blueprint, and we had the carpenters using 
another blueprint, and the iron workers using a third blueprint. We 
would not wind up with this building.

[[Page 13991]]

  What we are saying is we think everybody ought to be in there making 
the same blueprint from the beginning. That makes sense to every one of 
our constituents.
  Members, look at what has happened over the last several years. From 
1995 to 2000, Federal spending grew at an average rate of 3.2 percent. 
Since we let spending caps and PAYGO expire, that number has doubled to 
6.4 percent.
  This is a modest attempt to get this Congress and this Federal 
Government back on an even keel. I think this makes a lot of sense. It 
makes sense to me. It makes sense to the people that we represent. It 
makes sense to Alan Greenspan.
  But, Members, if you are going to vote against this today, please 
understand you will be asked about it. Because this vote is going to be 
scored by the American Conservative Union, the Americans for Tax 
Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Council for the Citizens Against 
Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers' Union. People are paying 
attention to this vote. They want us to have a solid budget. They want 
us to enforce it. They want us to get back to fiscal sanity, and that 
begins today.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt substitute.
  The underlying bill continues to avoid the elephant in the room, the 
cost of endless tax cutting and its role in helping create the largest 
deficits in American history.
  The Spratt substitute, on the other hand, will reinstitute real PAYGO 
provisions that might just reign in the reckless Republican majority's 
mismanagement of the Federal budget. I believe that this mismanagement 
is intentional.
  While my colleagues on the other side say that they believe deficits 
do matter, their actions speak otherwise. In this session of Congress 
alone, the House has passed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
cuts. The tax cuts come even as we do not even have a budget, and the 
supporters do not care that the cost of these cuts will be borne by our 
children in the form of more debt that they will get saddled with.
  Why are we allowing these huge and growing deficits? It is called 
``starving the beast,'' making the deficit so huge that it gives an 
argument against spending for the very programs the vast majority of 
Americans support, support because of our beliefs in what this country 
stands for and where we place our values.
  This fiscally irresponsible underlying bill ill serves this country.
  Also, disappointing, but not surprising, is the process under which 
these amendments are being debated, denying the House an opportunity to 
have a full and open debate on such an important issue. For example, 
the Stenholm substitute was not allowed on the floor and the reason is 
simple. It would probably win. The Republican leadership simply does 
not want to allow the House to vote on issues where the leadership 
cannot win, and we have seen this time and time again. Amendments where 
the majority of the House is in opposition to the leadership just never 
see the light of day.
  It is wrong and I hope Members will support the Spratt substitute and 
help bring a little sanity to our Federal budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill reinstates the discretionary spending caps 
for fiscal year 2005 and 2006 and extends the highway and transit 
firewalls for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 at the levels contained in 
H.R. 3550, as passed by the House earlier this year.
  The inclusion of the highway and transit firewalls in the bill before 
us today is an important statement that the House intends to continue 
the budget reforms that were achieved for the Highway Trust Fund in 
TEA-21.
  It is my understanding that the level of the highway and transit 
firewalls will ultimately be determined by the conference of H.R. 3550 
in which the gentleman is a member, in accordance with the fiscal year 
2005 budget resolution, which provided for an adjustment in the 
transportation funding levels.
  I would like to clarify my views with the gentleman from Iowa and ask 
for his assistance in ensuring that the highway and transit firewalls 
ultimately enacted into law will reflect the agreement of the conferees 
on H.R. 3550.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is correct. This will, in no 
way, limit the decision of the conferees for H.R. 3550, the level of 
highway and transit firewalls. It will be determined consistent with 
the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution and the contingency procedure 
contained therein in the conference report on H.R. 3550.
  In either case, this is consistent with the fiscal year 2005 budget 
resolution, and it allows not as a ceiling but a floor to that 
conference report.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this 
colloquy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from Iowa's 
(Mr. Nussle) time has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I 
rise in opposition to the Republican budget legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today to debate a very important issue, and 
that is reinstituting fiscal disciplinary rules in the budget process. 
We need a meaningful pay-as-you-go rule, one that offsets both spending 
and tax cuts to achieve balance.
  Unfortunately, what is before us today is more like ``pray-as-you-
go'' or more like ``pay-a-little-bit-as-you-go'' and leave a legacy of 
debt to the next generation to inherit.
  Unfortunately, we hear a lot of talk on the other side that the 
problem is always spending, too much spending. Well, if that is the 
case, then what have you been doing the last 4 years? Republicans have 
been in control of the House of Representatives. Republicans have been 
in control of the Senate. There is a Republican President sitting in 
the White House, and he has not vetoed one spending bill in the last 4 
years. Instead, he inherits a 5.6 projected surplus, converts it into a 
$3 trillion deficit and now claims that spending has run away.
  Instead, we could go back to a tried and true method that worked in 
the 1990s, a pay-as-you-go rule that made sense and brought balance and 
then budget surpluses that actually allowed us to reduce the national 
debt. That is what the Spratt substitute allows, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican smokescreen.
  It makes infinitely more sense to debate budget reform before voting 
on a budget, but that kind of common sense regularly escapes this 
majority and it is why there has not been a budget agreement for over 4 
months. In fact, this House has been on a session-long recess when it 
comes to addressing the health care crisis, educational crisis and 
retirement security crisis in America.
  That is because the majority is scared of being honest with the 
American people. This is a smoke screen, none of which is going to fool 
the American people that you are responsible for $3 trillion in 
additional debt and an annual deficit of $500 billion dollars.
  This legislation ignores the advice of Chairman Greenspan, who said 
it would

[[Page 13992]]

be a grave mistake to let pay-as-you-go budget enforcement rules 
expire. This bill even ignores the advice of the gentleman from Iowa, 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who said just 2 years ago 
that pay-as-you-go contributed to taming the deficits.
  The chairman voted for those rules in 1997. They were good in 1997; 
they are good now. That vote ensured we made choices, lived within our 
means and ensured we were held accountable for what we do. Those who 
voted for the bill in 1997 made sure that we lived within our means, 
that we made choices as we governed.
  The 1990s achieved record economic times: 22 million more jobs; 
health care and tax cuts for middle class families; 10 million more 
children without health insurance got insurance; college doors were 
opened; Social Security was secure. Those are the choices we made and 
we did it and balanced the budget while we cut taxes for middle class 
families. Those are the right economic times.
  Today, what do we have? Health care costs have gone up by a third. 
College costs have gone up by 26 percent in the last 2 years. Personal 
bankruptcies are up by a third since 2000, and in fact, you all want to 
lay the sign ``mission Accomplished'' above the economy. This economy 
is not working for the American people and your budget and your $500 
billion worth of deficits are the results that the American people have 
to turn to their children and make them pay their way out of it.
  We turned our back on what we learn in the 1990s. If you are in a 
hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for the time. I also thank him for the good work he has 
done in bringing some rationale and reason to this process that really 
impacts the lives of Americans and really the lives of our friends and 
allies around the world.
  I would like to remind my friends that we are at war. This is a 
difficult time for America. It is a time of sacrifice, but I think it 
is important to note that the budget resolution that my good friends on 
the other side of the aisle are trying to shove down this Congress' 
throat is $18.9 billion for individuals making over $1 million. Is that 
sacrifice, Mr. Chairman? It is not.
  We are standing here today to ask for at least a little hope, a 
little understanding, a little reason. The Spratt amendment, the 
substitute that will be on the floor, speaks to reason. Would my 
colleagues accept the fact that we are at war? Three of our young men, 
women lost their lives in the last 24 hours in Iraq; $25 billion is 
going out over the next couple of days; more money will be asked for 
Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet we want to give $18.9 billion away.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not creating any jobs in America, but yet we 
have legislation that we hope will pass that will invest in quality 
health care for veterans. Can my colleagues believe it, they are 
cutting veterans dollars.
  Give us critical investments in education. Help us with the long-term 
unemployed. Some of them are off the unemployment list and never heard 
from again. Provide for the children who are vulnerable and as well 
provide the investment in clean water.
  We are at war. It is time for sacrifice. We need the Spratt 
substitute. We do not need $18.9 billion to be given to those making 
over $1 million. I would ask for a ``no'' vote, and a ``yes'' vote on 
the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time, 1\1/2\ 
minutes, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  We have heard a lot of people say the budget is good. We have heard 
some people say it is bad. We have heard some people casting blame, and 
we have heard some people making excuses. I think it is just helpful to 
start off with what the facts are.
  This is a chart showing the deficit back to the Johnson 
administration, a little bit of deficit, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan 
and Bush deficit, Clinton from deficit to surplus, Bush deficit. The 
swing from the surplus to the deficit, $750 billion.
  Now, let us put that in perspective. If we look at the revenue, 
individual income tax, what everybody pays in individual income tax, 
$800 billion; deterioration in the deficit, 750. Now, when we run up 
that kind of debt, we run up interest in the national debt. This is the 
chart that showed that by 2009, we would be paying virtually nothing in 
interest on the national debt because we had enough surplus to pay off 
the national debt. This chart shows that we are going to be paying $300 
billion a year in interest in the national debt, $300 billion. At 
$30,000 each, that is enough to hire 10 million people, more than the 
total number of people drawing unemployment today.
  We said we got into that mess to create jobs. This is the chart 
showing the average job growth, Ford administration back to the Hoover 
administration. Everybody is net plus until we get to this 
administration. People look at this chart and say the job growth is 
good, job growth is bad. Make your own decision.
  Mr. BACA. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my 
remarks. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4663, the Republican Budget 
Enforcement bill and in support of the Spratt Democratic substitute.
  This bill is an irresponsible attempt to place the burden of reducing 
the large budget deficit brought about by huge, new tax cuts on the 
backs of the vast majority of Americans. The bill relies on one-sided 
pay-as-you-go rules that will worsen the deficit rather than improve 
it. The Budget Enforcement bill slashes spending on public services 
important to all Americans but allows unlimited deficits for tax cuts.
  If that wasn't bad enough, the Republican amendments also included 
this pay-go provision as well as an entitlement cap that would put 
important government services at risk. Republicans would require that 
any improvements in entitlement programs be offset with cuts in 
programs like Medicaid, Medicare, veterans programs, food stamps, and 
student loans. As a result of the entitlement cap, veterans will get 
$1.3 billion less than what the House Veterans' Affairs Committee says 
it needs for veterans' health care programs next year. Education would 
be cut by more than $1.5 billion in 2006. All these programs would be 
cut so that important national priorities like tax cuts for the wealthy 
can be spared. This is their definition of compassionate conservatism.
  Because the republican bill would cap non-defense discretionary 
spending, investments in real priorities like education, veterans' 
medical care, and law enforcement would be reduced. More Americans will 
be without access to adequate health care, more students will be left 
without financial resources to go to college, and more families will be 
left without hope.
  Instead, I support the Spratt substitute amendment, which would 
establish effective pay-go rules for both spending and tax cuts. Just 
in case I need to remind anyone, that is the plan that led us out of 
the first Bush recession into an era of record surpluses in the 1990s.
  Let's give our children, our veterans and all Americans the resources 
they need and support the Spratt substitute amendment and oppose the 
Republican Budget Enforcement bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 4663, the Spending Control Act 
of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of 
excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should 
support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great 
expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal 
responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the 
Senate, the main effect of today's vote will be to allow members to 
brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. 
Many of these members will not tell their constituents that later this 
year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus 
spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read 
before voting. In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote 
for H.R. 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members voted for 
the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If 
Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or 
refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress 
will make the tough choices necessary

[[Page 13993]]

to restore fiscal order, much less Constitutional government?
  Even if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in 
this bill allowing spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill's 
spending caps will prove to be an easily abused loophole allowing 
future Congresses to avoid the spending limitations in this bill. I am 
also concerned that, by not applying the spending caps to international 
or military programs, this bill invites future Congresses to misplace 
priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal imprudence. Congress 
will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously examine our 
overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational 
corporations and subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly 
capable of defending themselves.
  Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal 
discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded 
``surpluses'' of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating 
an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the Social Security 
trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal 
conservativism in Washington, DC.
  The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting 
the idea that the Federal Government has the authority and the 
competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the 
last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot 
create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all 
economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide 
peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and 
regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have 
exacerbated America's economic and social problems. Meanwhile our 
international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather 
lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace.
  Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited 
government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The 
Constitution limits the Federal Government to a few, well-defined 
functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government 
would be debating my Liberty amendment (H.J. Res. 15). The Liberty 
amendment repeals the 16th amendment, thus eliminating the income tax 
the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual 
liberty. The Liberty amendment also explicitly limits the Federal 
Government to those functions it is Constitutionally authorized to 
perform.
  If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also 
eliminate the Federal Reserve Board's ability to inflate the currency. 
Federal Reserve policy enables excessive government spending by 
allowing the government to monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of 
big government through the hidden tax of inflation.
  In 1974, during debate on the Congressional Budget Reform and 
Impoundment Control Act, Congressman H.R. Gross, a libertarian-
conservative from Iowa, eloquently addressed the flaws in thinking that 
budget process reform absent the political will to cut spending would 
reduce the size of government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my 
remarks by quoting Mr. Gross:

       Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend 
     $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,500 and remain solvent. 
     Every member knows this Government cannot forever spend 
     billions beyond tax revenue and endure.
       Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight 
     into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can 
     impound funds or spend unwisely unless an improvident, 
     reckless Congress makes available the money.
       I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will 
     provide morality and responsibility on the part of Members of 
     Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 4663 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4663

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Spending Control Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--(1) Section 251(c)(1) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (relating to fiscal year 2004) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$31,834,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$28,052,000,000''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$1,462,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,436,000,000'' and by striking 
     ``$6,629,000,000'' and inserting ``$6,271,000,000''.
       (2) Section 251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting a dash 
     after ``2005'', by redesignating the remaining portion of 
     such paragraph as subparagraph (D) and by moving it two ems 
     to the right, and by inserting after the dash the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(A) for the general purpose discretionary category: 
     $817,726,000,000 in new budget authority and $866,056,000,000 
     in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $30,585,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $1,554,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $6,787,000,000 in outlays; and''.
       (3) Section 251(c)(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting a dash 
     after ``2006'', by redesignating the remaining portion of 
     such paragraph as subparagraph (D) and by moving it two ems 
     to the right, and by inserting after the dash the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(A) for the general purpose discretionary category: 
     $839,167,000,000 in new budget authority and $851,731,000,000 
     in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $33,271,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $1,671,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $7,585,000,000 in outlays; and''.
       (4) Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraphs (4) through (9) as paragraphs (7) through (12) and 
     inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2007--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $35,248,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,785,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $8,110,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2008--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $36,587,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,890,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $8,517,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2009--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $37,682,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $2,017,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $8,968,000,000 in outlays;''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by--
       (A) striking ``the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century and the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
     2003'' and inserting ``the Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users''; and
       (B) inserting before the period at the end the following 
     new clauses:
       ``(v) 69-8158-0-7-401 (Motor Carrier Safety Grants).
       ``(vi) 69-8159-0-7-401 (Motor Carrier Safety Operations and 
     Programs).'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by--
       (A) inserting ``(and successor accounts)'' after ``budget 
     accounts''; and
       (B) striking ``the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century and the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003 
     or for which appropriations are provided pursuant to 
     authorizations contained in those Acts (except that 
     appropriations provided pursuant to section 5338(h) of title 
     49, United States Code, as amended by the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century, shall not be included in 
     this category)'' and inserting ``the Transportation Equity 
     Act: A Legacy for Users or for which appropriations are 
     provided pursuant to authorizations contained in that Act''; 
     and
       (3) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``section 8103 of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'' and 
     inserting ``section 8103 of the Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users''.

     SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENTS TO ALIGN HIGHWAY SPENDING WITH REVENUES.

       Subparagraphs (B) through (E) of section 251(b)(1) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Adjustment to align highway spending with revenues.--
     (i) When the President submits the budget under section 1105 
     of title 31, United States Code, OMB shall calculate and the 
     budget shall make adjustments to the highway category for the 
     budget year and each outyear as provided in clause 
     (ii)(I)(cc).
       ``(ii)(I)(aa) OMB shall take the actual level of highway 
     receipts for the year before the current year and subtract 
     the sum of the estimated level of highway receipts in 
     subclause (II) plus any amount previously calculated under 
     item (bb) for that year.
       (bb) OMB shall take the current estimate of highway 
     receipts for the current year and subtract the estimated 
     level of receipts for that year.
       ``(cc) OMB shall add one-half of the sum of the amount 
     calculated under items (aa) and (bb) to the obligation 
     limitations set forth in the section 8103 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and, using 
     current estimates, calculate the outlay change resulting from 
     the change in obligations for the budget year and the first 
     outyear and the outlays flowing therefrom through subsequent 
     fiscal years. After making the calculations under the 
     preceding sentence, OMB

[[Page 13994]]

     shall adjust the amount of obligations set forth in that 
     section for the budget year and the first outyear by adding 
     one-half of the sum of the amount calculated under items (aa) 
     and (bb) to each such year.
       ``(II) The estimated level of highway receipts for the 
     purposes of this clause are--
       ``(aa) for fiscal year 2004, $30,572,000,000;
       ``(bb) for fiscal year 2005, $34,260,000,000;
       ``(cc) for fiscal year 2006, $35,586,000,000;
       ``(dd) for fiscal year 2007, $36,570,000,000;
       ``(ee) for fiscal year 2008, $37,603,000,000; and
       ``(ff) for fiscal year 2009, $38,651,000,000.
       ``(III) In this clause, the term `highway receipts' means 
     the governmental receipts credited to the highway account of 
     the Highway Trust Fund.
       ``(C) In addition to the adjustment required by 
     subparagraph (B), when the President submits the budget under 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009, OMB shall calculate and the budget 
     shall include for the budget year and each outyear an 
     adjustment to the limits on outlays for the highway category 
     and the mass transit category equal to--
       ``(i) the outlays for the applicable category calculated 
     assuming obligation levels consistent with the estimates 
     prepared pursuant to subparagraph (D), as adjusted, using 
     current technical assumptions; minus
       ``(ii) the outlays for the applicable category set forth in 
     the subparagraph (D) estimates, as adjusted.
       ``(D)(i) When OMB and CBO submit their final sequester 
     report for fiscal year 2004, that report shall include an 
     estimate of the outlays for each of the categories that would 
     result in fiscal years 2005 through 2009 from obligations at 
     the levels specified in section 8103 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users using current assumptions.
       ``(ii) When the President submits the budget under section 
     1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2006, 
     2007, 2008, or 2009, OMB shall adjust the estimates made in 
     clause (i) by the adjustments by subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       ``(E) OMB shall consult with the Committees on the Budget 
     and include a report on adjustments under subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C) in the preview report.''.

     SEC. 4. LEVEL OF OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Highway Category.--For the purposes of section 251(b) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, the level of obligation limitations for the highway 
     category is--
       (1) for fiscal year 2004, $34,309,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2005, $35,671,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2006, $36,719,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2007, $37,800,000,000;
       (5) for fiscal year 2008, $38,913,000,000; and
       (6) for fiscal year 2009, $40,061,000,000.
       (b) Mass Transit Category.--For the purposes of section 
     251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, the level of obligation limitations for the mass 
     transit category is--
       (1) for fiscal year 2004, $7,266,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2005, $7,750,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2006, $8,266,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2007, $8,816,000,000;
       (5) for fiscal year 2008, $9,403,000,000; and
       (6) for fiscal year 2009, $10,029,000,000.

     For purposes of this subsection, the term ``obligation 
     limitations'' means the sum of budget authority and 
     obligation limitations.

     SEC. 5. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Advance Appropriations.--In any of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2006, discretionary advance appropriations provided 
     in appropriation Acts in excess of $23,558,000,000 shall be 
     counted against the discretionary spending limits for the 
     fiscal year for which the appropriation Act containing the 
     advance appropriation is enacted.''.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Purpose.--Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assure 
     that any legislation that is enacted before October 1, 2009, 
     that causes a net increase in direct spending will trigger an 
     offsetting sequestration.''.
       (b) Timing.--Section 252(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
     ``any net deficit increase'' and all that follows through 
     ``2002,'' and by inserting ``any net increase in direct 
     spending enacted before October 1, 2009,''.
       (c) Calculation of Direct Spending Increase.--Section 
     252(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``deficit'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``direct spending'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and receipts'';
       (3) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and receipts''; and
       (4) by amending the heading to read as follows: 
     ``Calculation of direct spending increase.--''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 
     252(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows: ``Eliminating a 
     Direct Spending Increase.--''.
       (2) Paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 252(d) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are 
     amended by striking ``or receipts'' each place it appears.
       (3) Section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``or 
     receipts'' and by striking ``, outlays, and receipts'' and 
     inserting ``and outlays''.
       (4) Section 254(c)(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``net deficit increase 
     or decrease'' and by inserting ``net increase or decrease in 
     direct spending'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``amount of deficit 
     increase or decrease'' and by inserting ``increase or 
     decrease in direct spending''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``a deficit increase'' 
     and by inserting ``an increase in direct spending''.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(20) The term `advance appropriation' means 
     appropriations that first become available one fiscal year or 
     more beyond the fiscal year for which an appropriation Act 
     making such funds available is enacted.
       ``(21)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), the term 
     `emergency requirement' means any provision that provides new 
     budget authority and resulting outlays for a situation that 
     poses a threat to life, property, or national security and 
     is--
       ``(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building 
     up over time;
       ``(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       ``(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       ``(iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       ``(B) An emergency that is part of an aggregate level of 
     anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated 
     in advance, is not unforeseen.''.
       (b) Fire Suppression; Contingency Operations Related to 
     Global War on Terrorism.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) Fire suppression.--(i) If a bill or joint resolution 
     is enacted that provides new budget authority for wildland 
     fire suppression for fiscal year 2005 or fiscal year 2006 
     that would cause the level of total new budget authority for 
     wildland fire suppression to exceed the base amount for that 
     fiscal year, the adjustment for that fiscal year shall be the 
     additional new budget authority provided for such purpose and 
     the additional outlays flowing from such amounts, but shall 
     not exceed--
       ``(I) for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2005 or fiscal 
     year 2006 (as applicable), $400,000,000; and
       ``(II) for the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 
     2005 or fiscal year 2006 (as applicable), $100,000,000.
       ``(ii) For this subparagraph, the term ``base amount'' 
     refers to the average of the obligations of the 10 fiscal 
     years preceding the current year for wildfire suppression in 
     the Forest Service and in the Department of the Interior, as 
     calculated by OMB, but for fiscal year 2005 the base amount 
     is $880,000,000.
       ``(J) Contingency operations related to global war on 
     terrorism.--If, for fiscal year 2005, appropriations for 
     discretionary accounts are enacted for contingency operations 
     related to the global war on terrorism that, pursuant to this 
     subparagraph, the President designates as a contingency 
     operation related to the global war on terrorism and the 
     Congress so designates in statute, the adjustment shall be 
     the total of such appropriations in discretionary accounts so 
     designated, but not to exceed $50,000,000,000, and the 
     outlays flowing in all fiscal years from such 
     appropriations.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
     250(c)(4)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows: ``The 
     general purpose discretionary category shall consist of 
     accounts designated in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying the conference report on the Spending 
     Control Act of 2004.''.

     SEC. 8. PROJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 257.

       Section 257(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Emergencies.--New budgetary resources designated 
     under section 251(b)(2)(A) or 251(b)(2)(J) shall not be 
     assumed beyond the fiscal year for which they have been 
     enacted.''.

     SEC. 9. EXCEPTION FOR OUTLAY COMPONENTS OF EXPIRING RECEIPTS 
                   LEGISLATION.

       Section 252(d)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``and'' at 
     the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), and by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) extending provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 or provisions in sections 
     101 through 104,

[[Page 13995]]

     section 202, or sections 301 and 302 of the Jobs and Growth 
     Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.''.

     SEC. 10. REPORTS.

       Subsections (c)(2) and (f)(2)(A) of section 254 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2006 (or 2009 
     solely for purposes of enforcing the discretionary spending 
     limits for the highway and mass transit categories)''.

     SEC. 11. EXPIRATION.

       Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2006 (or 2009 solely for purposes of enforcing 
     the discretionary spending limits for the highway and mass 
     transit categories)'' and by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2013''.

     SEC. 12. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE BALANCED BUDGET AND 
                   EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985.

       Part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 250(a), strike ``SEC. 256. GENERAL AND 
     SPECIAL SEQUESTRATION RULES'' and insert ``Sec. 256. General 
     and special sequestration rules'' in the item relating to 
     section 256.
       (2) In subparagraphs (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), and (K) of 
     section 250(c)(4), insert ``subparagraph'' after ``described 
     in'' each place it appears.
       (3) In section 250(c)(18), insert ``of'' after 
     ``expenses''.
       (4) In section 251(b)(1)(A), strike ``committees'' the 
     first place it appears and insert ``Committees''.
       (5) In section 251(b)(1)(C)(i), strike ``fiscal years'' and 
     insert ``fiscal year''.
       (6) In section 251(b)(1)(D)(ii), strike ``fiscal years'' 
     and insert ``fiscal year''.
       (7) In section 252(b)(2)(B), insert ``the'' before ``budget 
     year''.
       (8) In section 252(c)(1)(C)(i), strike ``paragraph (1)'' 
     and insert ``subsection (b)''.
       (9) In section 254(c)(3)(A), strike ``subsection'' and 
     insert ``section''.
       (10) In section 254(f)(4), strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``section'' and strike ``sequesterable'' and insert 
     ``sequestrable''.
       (11) In section 255(g)(1)(B), move the fourteenth 
     undesignated clause 2 ems to the right.
       (12) In section 255(g)(2), insert ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end of the next-to-last undesignated clause.
       (13) In section 255(h)--
       (A) strike ``and'' after the semicolon in the ninth 
     undesignated clause;
       (B) insert ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of the 
     tenth undesignated clause; and
       (C) strike the semicolon at the end and insert a period.
       (14) In section 256(k)(1), strike ``paragraph (5)'' and 
     insert ``paragraph (6)''.
       (15) In section 257(b)(2)(A)(i), strike ``differenes'' and 
     insert ``differences''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 108-566. 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 read, 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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-566.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
       Page 2, after line 3, insert the following: ``TITLE I--
     EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS AND PAY-AS-YOU-GO 
     REQUIREMENTS''.
       Redesignate sections 2 through 9 as sections 101 through 
     108, respectively, and on page 10, after line 21, add the 
     following new title:

      TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCY SUNSET COMMISSION

     SEC. 201. REVIEW AND ABOLISHMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Schedule for Review.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Agency Sunset 
     Commission established under section 202 (in this title 
     referred to as the ``Commission'') shall submit to Congress a 
     schedule for review by the Commission, at least once every 12 
     years (or less, if determined appropriate by Congress), of 
     the abolishment or reorganization of each agency.
       (b) Review of Agencies Performing Related Functions.--In 
     determining the schedule for review of agencies under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall provide that agencies 
     that perform similar or related functions be reviewed 
     concurrently to promote efficiency and consolidation.
       (c) Abolishment of Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--Each agency shall--
       (A) be reviewed according to the schedule created pursuant 
     to this section; and
       (B) be abolished not later than one year after the date 
     that the Commission completes its review of the agency 
     pursuant to such schedule, unless the agency is reauthorized 
     by the Congress.
       (2) Extension.--The deadline for abolishing an agency may 
     be extended for an additional two years after the date 
     described in paragraph (1)(B) if the Congress enacts 
     legislation extending such deadline by a vote of a super 
     majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Federal Agency Sunset Commission''.
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members (in this title referred to as the ``members'') who 
     shall be appointed as follows:
       (1) Six members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, one of whom may include the Speaker 
     of the House of Representatives, with minority members 
     appointed with the consent of the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Six members shall be appointed by the majority leader 
     of the Senate, one of whom may include the majority leader of 
     the Senate, with minority members appointed with the consent 
     of the minority leader of the Senate.
       (c) Qualifications of Members.--
       (1) In general.--(A) Of the members appointed under 
     subsection (b)(1), four shall be members of the House of 
     Representatives (not more than two of whom may be of the same 
     political party), and two shall be an individual described in 
     subparagraph (C).
       (B) Of the members appointed under subsection (b)(2), four 
     shall be members of the Senate (not more than two of whom may 
     be of the same political party) and two shall be an 
     individual described in subparagraph (C).
       (C) An individual under this subparagraph is an 
     individual--
       (i) who is not a member of Congress; and
       (ii) with expertise in the operation and administration of 
     Government programs.
       (2) Continuation of membership.--If a member was appointed 
     to the Commission as a Member of Congress and the member 
     ceases to be a Member of Congress, that member shall cease to 
     be a member of the Commission. The validity of any action of 
     the Commission shall not be affected as a result of a member 
     becoming ineligible to serve as a member for the reasons 
     described in this paragraph.
       (d) Initial Appointments.--All initial appointments to the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Chairman; Vice Chairman.--
       (1) Initial chairman.--An individual shall be designated by 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives from among the 
     members initially appointed under subsection (b)(1) to serve 
     as chairman of the Commission for a period of 2 years.
       (2) Initial vice-chairman.--An individual shall be 
     designated by the majority leader of the Senate from among 
     the individuals initially appointed under subsection (b)(2) 
     to serve as vice-chairman of the Commission for a period of 
     two years.
       (3) Alternate appointments of chairmen and vice-chairmen.--
     Following the termination of the two-year period described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), the Speaker and the majority leader 
     shall alternate every two years in appointing the chairman 
     and vice-chairman of the Commission.
       (f) Terms of Members.--
       (1) Members of congress.--Each member appointed to the 
     Commission who is a member of Congress shall serve for a term 
     of six years, except that, of the members first appointed 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), 2 members 
     shall be appointed to serve a term of three years under each 
     such paragraph.
       (2) Other members.--Each member of the Commission who is 
     not a member of Congress shall serve for a term of three 
     years.
       (3) Term limit.--(A) A member of the Commission who is a 
     member of Congress and who serves more than three years of a 
     term may not be appointed to another term as a member.
       (B) A member of the Commission who is not a member of 
     Congress and who serves as a member of the Commission for 
     more than 56 months may not be appointed to another term as a 
     member.
       (g) Powers of Commission.--
       (1) Hearings and sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this title, hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers 
     appropriate. The Commission may administer oaths to witnesses 
     appearing before it.
       (2) Obtaining information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out its duties 
     under this title. Upon request of

[[Page 13996]]

     the Chairman, the head of that department or agency shall 
     furnish that information to the Commission in a full and 
     timely manner.
       (3) Subpoena power.--(A) The Commission may issue a 
     subpoena to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses 
     and the production of evidence relating to any matter under 
     investigation by the Commission.
       (B) If a person refuses to obey an order or subpoena of the 
     Commission that is issued in connection with a Commission 
     proceeding, the Commission may apply to the United States 
     district court in the judicial district in which the 
     proceeding is held for an order requiring the person to 
     comply with the subpoena or order.
       (4) Immunity.--The Commission is an agency of the United 
     States for purposes of part V of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to immunity of witnesses).
       (5) Contract authority.--The Commission may contract with 
     and compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     services without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
     Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
       (h) Commission Procedures.--
       (1) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman.
       (2) Quorum.--Seven members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (i) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation.--Members shall not be paid by reason of 
     their service as members.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Director.--The Commission shall have a Director who 
     shall be appointed by the Chairman. The Director shall be 
     paid at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate of basic pay 
     payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (4) Staff.--The Director may appoint and fix the pay of 
     additional personnel as the Director considers appropriate.
       (5) Applicability of certain civil service laws.--The 
     Director and staff of the Commission shall be appointed 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and shall 
     be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (j) Other Administrative Matters.--
       (1) Postal and printing services.--The Commission may use 
     the United States mails and obtain printing and binding 
     services in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the United States.
       (2) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its duties under this title.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (k) Sunset of Commission.--The Commission shall terminate 
     on December 31, 2026, unless reauthorized by Congress.

     SEC. 203. REVIEW OF EFFICIENCY AND NEED FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall review the efficiency 
     and public need for each agency in accordance with the 
     criteria described in section 204.
       (b) Recommendations; Report to Congress.--The Commission 
     shall submit to Congress and the President not later than 
     September 1 of each year a report containing--
       (1) an analysis of the efficiency of operation and public 
     need for each agency to be reviewed in the year in which the 
     report is submitted pursuant to the schedule submitted to 
     Congress under section 201;
       (2) recommendations on whether each such agency should be 
     abolished or reorganized;
       (3) recommendations on whether the functions of any other 
     agencies should be consolidated, transferred, or reorganized 
     in an agency to be reviewed in the year in which the report 
     is submitted pursuant to the schedule submitted to Congress 
     under section 201; and
       (4) recommendations for administrative and legislative 
     action with respect to each such agency, but not including 
     recommendations for appropriation levels.
       (c) Draft Legislation.--The Commission shall submit to 
     Congress and the President not later than September 1 of each 
     year a draft of legislation to carry out the recommendations 
     of the Commission under subsection (b).
       (d) Information Gathering.--The Commission shall--
       (1) conduct public hearings on the abolishment of each 
     agency reviewed under subsection (b);
       (2) provide an opportunity for public comment on the 
     abolishment of each such agency;
       (3) require the agency to provide information to the 
     Commission as appropriate; and
       (4) consult with the General Accounting Office, the Office 
     of Management and Budget, the Comptroller General, and the 
     chairman and ranking minority members of the committees of 
     Congress with oversight responsibility for the agency being 
     reviewed regarding the operation of the agency.
       (e) Use of Program Inventory.--The Commission shall use the 
     program inventory prepared under section 208 in reviewing the 
     efficiency and public need for each agency under subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 204. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW.

       The Commission shall evaluate the efficiency and public 
     need for each agency pursuant to section 203(a) using the 
     following criteria:
       (1) The effectiveness, and the efficiency of the operation 
     of, the programs carried out by each such agency.
       (2) Whether the programs carried out by the agency are 
     cost-effective.
       (3) Whether the agency has acted outside the scope of its 
     original authority, and whether the original objectives of 
     the agency have been achieved.
       (4) Whether less restrictive or alternative methods exist 
     to carry out the functions of the agency.
       (5) The extent to which the jurisdiction of, and the 
     programs administered by, the agency duplicate or conflict 
     with the jurisdiction and programs of other agencies.
       (6) The potential benefits of consolidating programs 
     administered by the agency with similar or duplicative 
     programs of other agencies, and the potential for 
     consolidating such programs.
       (7) The number and types of beneficiaries or persons served 
     by programs carried out by the agency.
       (8) The extent to which any trends, developments, and 
     emerging conditions that are likely to affect the future 
     nature and extent of the problems or needs that the programs 
     carried out by the agency are intended to address.
       (9) The extent to which the agency has complied with the 
     provisions contained in the Government Performance and 
     Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285).
       (10) The promptness and effectiveness with which the agency 
     seeks public input and input from State and local governments 
     on the efficiency and effectiveness of the performance of the 
     functions of the agency.
       (11) Whether the agency has worked to enact changes in the 
     law that are intended to benefit the public as a whole rather 
     than the specific business, institution, or individuals that 
     the agency regulates.
       (12) The extent to which the agency has encouraged 
     participation by the public as a whole in making its rules 
     and decisions rather than encouraging participation solely by 
     those it regulates.
       (13) The extent to which the public participation in 
     rulemaking and decisionmaking of the agency has resulted in 
     rules and decisions compatible with the objectives of the 
     agency.
       (14) The extent to which the agency complies with section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Freedom of Information Act'').
       (15) The extent to which the agency complies with equal 
     employment opportunity requirements regarding equal 
     employment opportunity.
       (16) The extent of the regulatory, privacy, and paperwork 
     impacts of the programs carried out by the agency.
       (17) The extent to which the agency has coordinated with 
     State and local governments in performing the functions of 
     the agency.
       (18) The potential effects of abolishing the agency on 
     State and local governments.
       (19) The extent to which changes are necessary in the 
     authorizing statutes of the agency in order that the 
     functions of the agency can be performed in the most 
     efficient and effective manner.

     SEC. 205. COMMISSION OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Monitoring of Implementation of Recommendations.--The 
     Commission shall monitor implementation of laws enacting 
     provisions that incorporate recommendations of the Commission 
     with respect to abolishment or reorganization of agencies.
       (b) Monitoring of Other Relevant Legislation.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall review and report to 
     Congress on all legislation introduced in either house of 
     Congress that would establish--
       (A) a new agency;
       (B) a new program to be carried out by an existing agency.
       (2) Report to congress.--The Commission shall include in 
     each report submitted to Congress under paragraph (1) an 
     analysis of whether--
       (A) the functions of the proposed agency or program could 
     be carried out by one or more existing agencies;
       (B) the functions of the proposed agency or program could 
     be carried out in a less restrictive manner than the manner 
     proposed in the legislation; and
       (C) the legislation provides for public input regarding the 
     performance of functions by the proposed agency or program.

     SEC. 206. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       The Commission may promulgate such rules as necessary to 
     carry out this title.

     SEC. 207. RELOCATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       If the position of an employee of an agency is eliminated 
     as a result of the abolishment of an agency in accordance 
     with this title,

[[Page 13997]]

     there shall be a reasonable effort to relocate such employee 
     to a position within another agency.

     SEC. 208. PROGRAM INVENTORY.

       (a) Preparation.--The Comptroller General and the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office, in cooperation with the 
     Director of the Congressional Research Service, shall prepare 
     an inventory of Federal programs (in this title referred to 
     as the ``program inventory'') within each agency.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program inventory is to 
     advise and assist the Congress and the Commission in carrying 
     out the requirements of this title. Such inventory shall not 
     in any way bind the committees of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives with respect to their responsibilities under 
     this title and shall not infringe on the legislative and 
     oversight responsibilities of such committees. The 
     Comptroller General shall compile and maintain the inventory 
     and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     provide budgetary information for inclusion in the inventory.
       (c) Inventory Content.--The program inventory shall set 
     forth for each program each of the following matters:
       (1) The specific provision or provisions of law authorizing 
     the program.
       (2) The committees of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives which have legislative or oversight 
     jurisdiction over the program.
       (3) A brief statement of the purpose or purposes to be 
     achieved by the program.
       (4) The committees which have jurisdiction over legislation 
     providing new budget authority for the program, including the 
     appropriate subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
       (5) The agency and, if applicable, the subdivision thereof 
     responsible for administering the program.
       (6) The grants-in-aid, if any, provided by such program to 
     State and local governments.
       (7) The next reauthorization date for the program.
       (8) A unique identification number which links the program 
     and functional category structure.
       (9) The year in which the program was originally 
     established and, where applicable, the year in which the 
     program expires.
       (10) Where applicable, the year in which new budget 
     authority for the program was last authorized and the year in 
     which current authorizations of new budget authority expire.
       (d) Budget Authority.--The report also shall set forth for 
     each program whether the new budget authority provided for 
     such programs is--
       (1) authorized for a definite period of time;
       (2) authorized in a specific dollar amount but without 
     limit of time;
       (3) authorized without limit of time or dollar amounts;
       (4) not specifically authorized; or
       (5) permanently provided,
     as determined by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office.
       (e) CBO Information.--For each program or group of 
     programs, the program inventory also shall include 
     information prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office indicating each of the following matters:
       (1) The amounts of new budget authority authorized and 
     provided for the program for each of the preceding four 
     fiscal years and, where applicable, the four succeeding 
     fiscal years.
       (2) The functional and subfunctional category in which the 
     program is presently classified and was classified under the 
     fiscal year 2001 budget.
       (3) The identification code and title of the appropriation 
     account in which budget authority is provided for the 
     program.
       (f) Mutual Exchange of Information.--The General Accounting 
     Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall permit the mutual exchange 
     of available information in their possession which would aid 
     in the compilation of the program inventory.
       (g) Assistance by Executive Branch.--The Office of 
     Management and Budget, and the Executive agencies and the 
     subdivisions thereof shall, to the extent necessary and 
     possible, provide the General Accounting Office with 
     assistance requested by the Comptroller General in the 
     compilation of the program inventory.

     SEC. 209. DEFINITION OF AGENCY.

       As used in this title, the term ``agency'' has the meaning 
     given that term by section 105 of title 5, United States 
     Code, except that such term includes an advisory committee as 
     that term is defined in section 102(2) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.

     SEC. 210. OFFSET OF AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED.

       Amounts appropriated to carry out this title shall be 
     offset by a reduction in amounts appropriated to carry out 
     programs of other Federal agencies.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 692, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today with my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) 
to offer the elimination of obsolete agencies and Federal sunset 
amendment.
  President Reagan once said, The closest thing to immortality on this 
earth is a Federal program. President Carter said, ``Too many Federal 
programs have been allowed to continue indefinitely without examining 
whether they are accomplishing what they were meant to do. The 
country's needs and priorities change, and we must assure that 
government programs change with them.'' That is why he supported a 
Federal sunset law.
  Republicans and Democrats can agree together that our Federal 
Government is simply too wasteful. In a time of war and deficits, we 
need to make sure that every dollar counts.
  A Federal sunset law is a proven and thoughtful way to balance 
obsolete Federal programs, eliminate duplication and hold every Federal 
agency accountable to taxpayers.
  The sunset law creates a bipartisan, 12-member sunset commission, 
appointed half by the House and half by the Senate, half by Republicans 
and half by Democrats. It assigns an expiration date to every Federal 
agency and program. It requires them to justify their existence to 
taxpayers, not their value 50 years ago when they were created, but 
does it justify our precious tax dollars today.
  The problem is that once a program is created Congress clones it 
again and again. The average Federal program duplicates five others. At 
last count, there were 64 separate welfare programs, over 100 different 
job training programs, and over 300 economic development programs 
stretched over 13 separate agencies. With our deficit so large, and 
Congress constantly scratching for resources to meet America's true 
priorities, can we afford this wasteful spending?
  Best of all, under this Act, there are no sacred cows. Every agency 
is held equally accountable and must regularly prove to taxpayers that 
it deserves our precious tax dollars today. The days where Federal 
programs live to eternity whether they are needed or not will be over.
  For the first time, we tell Federal programs to put up or shut up, 
produce or leave, and then Congress can invest those precious tax 
dollars in programs and people that succeed and not one dime for those 
that do not.

                              {time}  1715

  Successful programs thrive under sunset, and this program works. More 
than over half the States in America have sunset acts. In Texas, where 
I served in the legislature, they have thoughtfully eliminated some 44 
programs and saved State taxpayers over a billion dollars. Results vary 
from State to State; but with a strong commitment, this can work well 
in the Federal Government as well.
  Savings alone are not the only benefit. It is amazing how responsive 
agencies become in the years prior to sunset. Treating taxpayers 
promptly, fairly, and with respect becomes a key to their survival, 
just like in business, and just the way government should always treat 
our taxpayers.
  Legislatively, sunsetting often causes agencies to hew much closer to 
legislative intent because they know they face a regular thorough 
examination in future years.
  The Federal sunset amendment has strong support across the political 
spectrum. My Democrat colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), 
who is at an important national security briefing as we speak, is a 
strong champion for this. We have support from everyone from Common 
Cause to American Conservative Union. We have broad support across the 
Members of Congress in this House. And in a recent national survey, 
over 77 percent of American taxpayers believe this would be helpful for 
cutting wasteful spending and spending our precious tax dollars where 
they belong.
  This is a powerful tool. Let us set sunset on wasteful spending. We 
can do better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner).

[[Page 13998]]


  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  This amendment, creating a sunset process, has been successful in 
many of our States. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and I have had 
personal experience with it in our State, where we have been able to 
eliminate unnecessary agencies. We have been able to streamline the 
activities of agencies.
  I know that at the Federal level we all understand that it is very 
difficult job within our existing committee structures to really take a 
good, hard and complete look at the management and the functioning of 
our Federal agencies in the course of the appropriations process and 
the oversight responsibilities of our authorizing committees. So by 
creating a bipartisan commission of six Democrats and six Republicans, 
we do this with a long-term view to accomplish some goals that perhaps 
we are not as good at accomplishing in our usual process.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, like a lot of Members, many of the provisions offered 
here are matters of first impression. I have not seen this bill before, 
so I would like to ask either of the cosponsors a question about a 
critical provision of the bill for their clarification.
  It is my understanding that this amendment would require that after 
each commission completes its review of an agency every 12 years, that 
agency would be abolished automatically, would be extinguished unless, 
within a year, Congress reauthorized the agency. Is that correct? Am I 
reading it correctly?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SPRATT. You would have automatic abolition of an agency? It would 
simply sunset?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, in the States that have used that, yes, that is correct; but it 
has rarely happened. It has been the tool for Congress to come together 
on reviewing it. Yes, sir.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I see the merit in 
having some sort of conscious, affirmative periodic review of the huge 
morass of agencies we have in the Federal Government; but I have some 
concern here that if a President disagreed with the Congress, you could 
have 289 Members of the House and 66 Members of the Senate who thought 
this agency should be reestablished, but the President could veto the 
bill that would reauthorize it; and, therefore, it would not come back 
into existence.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's 
concern, but I can assure him that in practice this has worked very 
well in Texas. We have never had the occurrence that the gentleman 
describes.
  In trying to alleviate some of the concerns that he has expressed, 
the gentleman from Texas and I put in this bill clear language that 
would say that the laws administered by these agencies do not sunset. 
There have been Members from time to time who have said, well, if an 
agency happened to sunset, then all the laws we passed that that agency 
administers would then go away and a lot of valuable programs 
disappear. We specifically have language here to ensure that the laws 
that administer various programs, and that are important to a lot of 
constituencies, do not disappear when the agency disappears.
  Having said that, in practical terms, when a sunset commission makes 
a recommendation to the Congress, if the Congress failed to be able to 
come to grips with the recommendations of the commission, what happens 
in most States, and it has certainly happened on a couple of occasions 
in Texas, is that the legislature, and I would hope the Congress, would 
simply extend the agency as it is and set a new sunset date to allow 
the process of review of that agency to continue.
  What we are trying to do here is create a bipartisan entity that has 
the credibility to make recommendations for change in operations of an 
agency, create new efficiencies, eliminate obsolete programs and 
obsolete offices, and to do it in a way that that commission and its 
recommendations have the same kind of weight that we all hope the 9/11 
Commission will have, where once they have reported, there is some 
momentum behind what this bipartisan group has recommended to the 
Congress.
  So I think in terms of our efforts in the years ahead, to try to 
figure out how to make government more efficient, to be sure that we 
are eliminating unnecessary spending, that this is a very powerful tool 
that we should take advantage of. And I think the concern that the 
gentleman from South Carolina expressed is not one that is likely to 
occur.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2, printed in House 
Report 108-566.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chocola

  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chocola:
       Page 2, after line 3, insert the following:

 TITLE I--EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS AND PAY-AS-YOU-GO 
                              REQUIREMENTS

       Redesignate sections 2 through 9 as sections 101 through 
     108, respectively; on page 5, lines 23 and 24, strike 
     ``paragraphs'' and insert ``paragraph''; on page 6, line 5, 
     insert quotation marks after the period and strike line 6 and 
     all that follows thereafter through page 7, line 12; on page 
     7, line 13, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''; and on page 7, 
     strike line 25 and insert the following: ``covered by 
     subsection (b) or (c) of section 316 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974''.
       At the end, add the following new titles:

                 TITLE II--ONE-PAGE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS

     SEC. 201. ONE-PAGE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.

       (a) Content of Annual Concurrent Resolutions on the 
     Budget.--Section 301(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) subtotals of new budget authority and outlays for 
     nondefense discretionary spending, defense discretionary 
     spending, direct spending (excluding interest), interest, and 
     emergencies (for the reserve fund in section 316(b) and for 
     military operations in section 316(c));''.
       (b) Additional Matters in Concurrent Resolution.--Section 
     301(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) Strike paragraphs (2), (4), and (6) through (9).
       (2) After paragraph (1), insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) require such other congressional procedures, relating 
     to the budget, as may be appropriate to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act;''.
       (3) At the end of paragraph (3), insert ``and'' and 
     redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph (4) and in such 
     paragraph strike the semicolon and insert a period.
       (c) Required Contents of Report.--Section 301(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended as follows:
       (1) Redesignate subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and 
     (F) as subparagraphs (B), (C), (E), (F), and (G), 
     respectively.
       (2) Before subparagraph (B) (as redesignated), insert the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) new budget authority and outlays for each major 
     functional category, based on allocations of the total levels 
     set forth pursuant to subsection (a)(1);''.
       (3) In subparagraph (C) (as redesignated), strike 
     ``mandatory'' and insert ``direct spending''.
       (d) Additional Contents of Report.--Section 301(e)(3) of 
     the Congressional Budget

[[Page 13999]]

     Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (D), by striking the period and inserting ``; 
     and'' at the end of subparagraph (E), and by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) reconciliation directives described in section 
     310.''.
       (e) President's Budget Submission to the Congress.--(1) The 
     first two sentences of section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, are amended to read as follows:

     ``On or after the first Monday in January but not later than 
     the first Monday in February of each year the President shall 
     submit a budget of the United States Government for the 
     following fiscal year which shall set forth the following 
     levels:
       ``(A) totals of new budget authority and outlays;
       ``(B) total Federal revenues and the amount, if any, by 
     which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be 
     increased or decreased by bills and resolutions to be 
     reported by the appropriate committees;
       ``(C) the surplus or deficit in the budget;
       ``(D) subtotals of new budget authority and outlays for 
     nondefense discretionary spending, defense discretionary 
     spending, direct spending (excluding interest), interest, and 
     emergencies (for the reserve fund in section 316(b) and for 
     military operations in section 316(c)); and
       ``(E) the public debt.

     Each budget submission shall include a budget message and 
     summary and supporting information and, as a separately 
     delineated statement, the levels required in the preceding 
     sentence for at least each of the 4 ensuing fiscal years.''.
       (2) The third sentence of section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``submission'' 
     after ``budget''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments to Section 310 Regarding 
     Reconciliation Directives.--(1) Section 310(a) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``A'' and inserting ``The joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     a''.
       (2) The first sentence of section 310(b) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``If'' and inserting ``If the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report 
     on''.
       (3) Section 310(c)(1) of such Act is amended by inserting 
     ``the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference 
     report on'' after ``pursuant to''.

                         TITLE III--EMERGENCIES

     SEC. 301. REPEAL OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Elimination of Emergency Designation.--Sections 
     251(b)(2)(A), 252(e), and 252(d)(4)(B) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are repealed.
       (b) Elimination of Adjustments.--Section 314(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (1) and by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) 
     as paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by repealing 
     paragraph (e) and by redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph 
     (e).

     SEC. 302. OMB EMERGENCY CRITERIA.

       (a) Definition of Emergency.--Section 3 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11)(A) The term `emergency' means a situation that--
       ``(i) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the 
     prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or 
     property, or a threat to national security; and
       ``(ii) is unanticipated.
       ``(B) As used in subparagraph (A), the term `unanticipated' 
     means that the situation is--
       ``(i) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not 
     building up over time;
       ``(ii) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need 
     requiring immediate action;
       ``(iii) unforeseen, which means not predicted or 
     anticipated as an emerging need; and
       ``(iv) temporary, which means not of a permanent 
     duration.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The term `emergency' has the 
     meaning given to such term in section 3 of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.''.

     SEC. 303. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF 
                   EMERGENCY DEFINITION.

       Not later than 5 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the chairmen of the Committees on the Budget (in 
     consultation with the President) shall, after consulting with 
     the chairmen of the Committees on Appropriations and 
     applicable authorizing committees of their respective Houses 
     and the Directors of the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     Office of Management and Budget, jointly publish in the 
     Congressional Record guidelines for application of the 
     definition of emergency set forth in section 3(11) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES IN PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.

       Section 1105(f) of title 31, United States Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``Such 
     budget submission shall also comply with the requirements of 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 316 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 and, in the case of any budget authority 
     requested for an emergency, such submission shall include a 
     detailed justification of why such emergency is an emergency 
     within the meaning of section 3(11) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.''.

     SEC. 305. BUDGETING FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Emergencies.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


                             ``emergencies

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Adjustments.--
       ``(1) In general.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution or the submission of a conference report thereon 
     that provides budget authority for any emergency as 
     identified pursuant to subsection (d) that is not covered by 
     subsection (c)--
       ``(A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate shall determine and 
     certify, pursuant to the guidelines referred to in section 
     303 of the Spending Control Act of 2004, the portion (if any) 
     of the amount so specified that is for an emergency within 
     the meaning of section 3(11); and
       ``(B) such chairman shall make the adjustment set forth in 
     paragraph (2) for the amount of new budget authority (or 
     outlays) in that measure and the outlays flowing from that 
     budget authority.
       ``(2) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are to be made to the allocations made 
     pursuant to the appropriate concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 302(a) and shall be in an amount 
     not to exceed the amount reserved for emergencies pursuant to 
     the requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(b) Reserve Fund for Nonmilitary Emergencies.--The amount 
     set forth in the reserve fund for emergencies for budget 
     authority and outlays for a fiscal year pursuant to section 
     301(a)(4) shall equal--
       ``(1) the average of the enacted levels of budget authority 
     for emergencies (other than those covered by subsection (c)) 
     in the 5 fiscal years preceding the current year; and
       ``(2) the average of the levels of outlays for emergencies 
     in the 5 fiscal years preceding the current year flowing from 
     the budget authority referred to in paragraph (1), but only 
     in the fiscal year for which such budget authority first 
     becomes available for obligation.
       ``(c) Treatment of Emergencies To Fund Certain Military 
     Operations.--Whenever the Committee on Appropriations reports 
     any bill or joint resolution that provides budget authority 
     for any emergency that is a threat to national security and 
     the funding of which carries out a military operation 
     authorized by a declaration of war or a joint resolution 
     authorizing the use of military force (or economic assistance 
     funding in furtherance of such operation) and the report 
     accompanying that bill or joint resolution, pursuant to 
     subsection (d), identifies any provision that increases 
     outlays or provides budget authority (and the outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for such emergency, the enactment of which would 
     cause the total amount of budget authority or outlays 
     provided for emergencies for the budget year in the joint 
     resolution on the budget (pursuant to section 301(a)(4)) to 
     be exceeded:
       ``(1) Such bill or joint resolution shall be referred to 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House or the Senate, as 
     the case may be, with instructions to report it without 
     amendment, other than that specified in paragraph (2), within 
     5 legislative days of the day in which it is reported from 
     the originating committee. If the Committee on the Budget of 
     either House fails to report a bill or joint resolution 
     referred to it under this subparagraph within such 5-day 
     period, the committee shall be automatically discharged from 
     further consideration of such bill or joint resolution and 
     such bill or joint resolution shall be placed on the 
     appropriate calendar.
       ``(2) An amendment to such a bill or joint resolution 
     referred to in this subsection shall only consist of an 
     exemption from section 251 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 of all or any part of 
     the provisions that provide budget authority (and the outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for such emergency if the committee 
     determines, pursuant to the guidelines referred to in section 
     303 of the Spending Control Act of 2004, that such budget 
     authority is for an emergency within the meaning of section 
     3(11).
       ``(3) If such a bill or joint resolution is reported with 
     an amendment specified in paragraph (2) by the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     then the budget authority and resulting outlays that are the 
     subject of such amendment shall not be included in any 
     determinations under section 302(f) or 311(a) for any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report.
       ``(d) Committee Notification of Emergency Legislation.--
     Whenever the Committee on Appropriations or any other 
     committee of either House (including a committee of 
     conference) reports any bill or joint resolution that 
     provides budget authority for any emergency, the report 
     accompanying that bill or joint resolution (or the

[[Page 14000]]

     joint explanatory statement of managers in the case of a 
     conference report on any such bill or joint resolution) shall 
     identify all provisions that provide budget authority and the 
     outlays flowing therefrom for such emergency and include a 
     statement of the reasons why such budget authority meets the 
     definition of an emergency pursuant to the guidelines 
     referred to in section 303 of the Spending Control Act of 
     2004.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 315 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Emergencies.''.

     SEC. 306. APPLICATION OF SECTION 306 TO EMERGENCIES IN EXCESS 
                   OF AMOUNTS IN RESERVE FUND.

       Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``No amendment reported by the Committee on the Budget (or 
     from the consideration of which such committee has been 
     discharged) pursuant to section 316(c) may be amended.''.

     SEC. 307. UP-TO-DATE TABULATIONS.

       Section 308(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
     (B), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) shall include an up-to-date tabulation of amounts 
     remaining in the reserve fund for emergencies.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 692, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The amendment I have offered is very straightforward. It is about 
simplicity, and it is about honesty in the budget process, which does 
not exist today.
  It is about simplicity because it replaces 20 budget functions that 
we currently have in our annual budget process with five. Those five 
would include mandatory spending, defense and nondefense discretionary 
spending, interest, and emergency spending, or a rainy day fund.
  By simplifying the process in this way, we make the budget process 
much easier; and we expedite it by focusing on overall spending, rather 
than focusing on 20 different so-called spending priorities. We spend 
too much time, frankly, debating and amending these spending 
priorities, when in the end they are not binding and they are 
ultimately, on too many occasions, ignored in the appropriations 
process.
  My amendment is about honesty because it budgets money that we know 
we are going to spend. Every year we spend money on emergencies that 
are not budgeted. My amendment changes this practice by creating a 
rainy day fund that is based on the rolling 5-year average of actual 
money we spend on emergencies. By doing that, we will expedite the 
delivery of needed funds in the event of a true emergency, and we will 
provide a clearer definition of what an emergency is to deter 
characterizing routine spending and spending money in and above the 
budgeted and appropriated levels.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bring more clarity to the 
process; it would bring more simplification and bring more honesty. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if adopted, would reduce the budget 
process to one page. And while the budget process has its flaws and has 
not worked well, it has certain advantages to it. First of all, it 
gives the House one of the few opportunities we have to make a judgment 
among competing priorities: how much money we will spend for education, 
versus how much money we will spend for housing, versus how much we 
will spend for defense.
  Secondly, it gives us some kind of central mechanism where everybody 
can make a decision about whether or not we want to increase taxes and 
decrease taxes, and expedite the process for doing so by way of 
reconciliation. Or we may feel it is necessary that we reduce 
entitlement spending.
  The committees of jurisdiction of those particular programs do not 
normally cotton to the idea of taking a cut out of the entitlement 
which falls under their jurisdiction. Once again, the reconciliation 
process in the budget helps us accomplish those ends.
  And then, finally, one of the problems that I have, and I have served 
here 20 years, and I think many other Members would confess they have 
it too, is that everything we do is so broken up into so many different 
parcels and pieces that it is hard to get a picture of the whole. The 
budget resolution at least gives us a picture of the whole. It helps us 
keep a tab on spending, and it also allows us to know whether or not 
aggregate spending estimates and aggregate revenue estimates are 
accurate.
  If you reduce spending to one total for discretionary spending, for 
example, you can claim that spending can be shrunk. But unless you have 
20 different functions to show how that shrinkage will take place, how 
those reductions would be achieved and affected, then nobody can judge 
whether or not, or will not be able to judge as well whether or not, 
that spending reduction, which you are claiming is reasonable and 
pragmatic and achievable, is indeed that.
  If you have to break it up into 20 different functions, it is one way 
the House gets together early in a session, expresses its priorities 
about those different functions; but it is also a way that we can tell 
whether or not that is realistic. On the other hand, if individual 
functions, whether it is defense or housing or health care or whatever, 
are understated well before this year's level, we may say that is not 
politically realistic, or that is not something I would like to see us 
do. And the budget resolution gives us an opportunity to vote on that 
as a House, one of the rare opportunities we get to express ourselves 
collectively.
  That is why I would strenuously oppose the notion of reducing the 
budget process to this summary kind of process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of this amendment.
  I am not sure how it benefits this House to vote on categories that 
have no enforcement ability whatsoever. When we have 13 appropriation 
bills and 20 budget functions that never meet, we are losing sight of 
another very important function that this budget ought to serve, and 
that is the function of protecting the family budget from the Federal 
budget.
  Spending is out of control. It is a very important debate between 
relative expenditures within the Federal budget, but we also have to 
focus on how much money are we going to take away from the American 
family; how are we going to impact their dreams and their ability to 
realize their housing programs, their education programs, their child 
care programs.
  We need to focus on what is enforceable, and we need to focus on 
protecting the family budget from the Federal budget. And if we believe 
in limited government, we will support this amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to simply say again, how do we know if the spending amounts that are 
provided for in the budget resolution in the aggregate are reasonable 
or attainable unless you break it down into their component parts and 
can see what is provided for defense and nondefense programs from 
entitlements and for discretionary programs alike?
  This is not a good idea. It is a bad idea. It decimates the budget 
process, and I hope the House will reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on a 
couple other aspects of this amendment

[[Page 14001]]

that I think are very important. This amendment really dovetails well 
with another amendment that is coming, which is breaking it into five 
simple categories so that we do not have these stalemates we have every 
year in Congress between the other Chamber and the White House. What we 
want to do is make the budget amendment easier to achieve in the 
beginning of the process. Also what this does is it has emergency 
spending protection so that we save for emergencies ahead of time, so 
that we have a rainy day fund to prepare for these kinds of 
emergencies.
  We also clean up the definition of emergencies in this amendment. Far 
too often in this body, we designate things that really do not pass the 
smell test as to what are emergencies. We want to have real emergencies 
being funded under the emergency spending reserve fund, not 
nonemergencies. That is why we think we need to clean up that rule that 
allows Congress to designate things like a summit house on top of Pikes 
Peak an emergency.
  So this bill makes it easier to get a budget agreement, cleans up our 
emergency spending designation and helps us set money aside so we can 
prepare for these inevitable emergencies that occur every year Congress 
spends this money.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say if the object of what we are doing 
tonight is to try to put some starch into the budget process, put some 
structure into it so we can get our hands around spending, get our 
hands around revenues, this is the opposite direction we should go.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 1 
minute and the right to close.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying as I started out that 
this amendment is straightforward, and it is about simplicity and 
honesty. I think we owe the American people a simplified budget that 
they can understand, and by reducing the number of budget functions 
from 20 to 5, I think we are accomplishing that goal.
  The 20 budget functions that we have already, as has been pointed 
out, are unenforceable and too often ignored in the budget 
appropriations process, and we are simply budgeting money that we know 
we are going to spend. Every single year we spend Federal money for 
emergencies that we spend above the budget and appropriated levels. So 
we are being honest with the American people, which I think they 
deserve.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is 
based on simplicity and honesty. It is exactly what we should be doing 
here every day, exactly what the American taxpayers and the American 
citizens deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, if we want to make the budget process 
opaque, more opaque, less transparent, then this will be the way to do 
it, but if you think we need more visibility, the House should assert 
more control, then we should have the kind of numbers we need to make 
honest judgments about the budget. We should stick at least with the 
process we have got. It is flawed, but this would be a travesty. This 
would destroy the budget process as it has existed since 1974.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Castle:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC.    . ESTABLISHMENT OF MACROECONOMIC CONGRESSIONAL 
                   BUDGETS.

       (a) Macroeconomic Categories.--Section 301(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraphs (5) 
     through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.
       (b) Additional Matters.--Section 301(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8), by striking 
     the period and inserting ``; and'' at the end of paragraph 
     (9), and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) set forth appropriate levels for each fiscal year 
     covered by such concurrent resolution for new budget 
     authority and outlays for each major functional category 
     established by the Committees on the Budget (after 
     consultation with each other), based on allocations of the 
     total levels set forth pursuant to subsection (a)(1).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 692, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is somewhat different but somewhat 
similar to the amendment we just had before us, which I would also 
support, but the challenge of passing a budget resolution, as we have 
seen particularly in recent years, and subsequent appropriation bills 
in a timely manner has proven to be an extraordinarily difficult series 
of tasks.
  In my opinion, this is, in large part, due to the fact that there are 
20 budget functions, 17 for broad areas of national need and 3 to 
ensure full coverage of the budget. This structure, therefore, forces 
us to engage in duplicitous debates over spending priorities.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and I believe that by 
eliminating the requirement of the budget functions, that we will 
provide the Committee on the Budget increased flexibility in moving the 
process forward each year.
  Specifically under this amendment, the Committee on the Budget will 
be given the opportunity to eliminate or restructure the budget 
functions. By granting the Committee on the Budget this ability, we 
will be giving them the ability to structure a budget in the most fair 
and efficient manner.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of how this may happen. Under 
this amendment, the committee would have the freedom to see a macro 
budget consisting of four aggregate numbers as opposed to the current 
20 budget functions. These aggregate numbers include total revenues, 
total budget authority and outlays, the surplus or deficit and the 
resultant debt.
  A macro budget may also include the amount by which revenues would be 
lowered. Under a macro budget the resulting resolution would also 
contain reconciliation instruction to expedite action, primarily by the 
Senate, as well as separate titles to reconciliation instructions, 
enforcement procedures and possible reserve accounts, thus preserving 
the importance of the budget resolution and helping guide Congress.
  The ability to use a macro budget empowers the committee to operate 
as they were originally intended, to provide the blueprint for the 
year's budget and to allow the appropriators to work out the details.
  Our focus should be on the larger macroeconomic impact of budget 
policies rather than a summation of proposed spending, and I happen to 
believe that the current functional categories have really become 
dysfunctional mechanisms for setting our priorities as a Nation.
  While I do not claim to have the perfect solution to fit our budget 
process into our fiscal timetable, I do, however, believe that 
minimizing duplication of issue deliberations could significantly 
accelerate the budget and appropriations process. As we all know, one 
of

[[Page 14002]]

the main holdups of the budget process is having the same debates on 
the same issues twice. I believe the details of spending within the set 
guidelines should fall to the appropriators. When the Committee on the 
Budget was formed in the 1970s, the intent was to look at the large 
blueprint. By eliminating the requirement of budget functions we allow 
the Committee on the Budget to set the broad parameters.
  The Hastings-Castle amendment provides the Budget Committees with the 
discretion to include whatever functional categories, if any, that they 
deem appropriate. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment 
as it will prevent us from constraining the economy by being beholden 
to the antiquated procedures that we have had over the past three 
decades.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wish there were some procedure in the House where we could give a 
hand signal or maybe use a code word and incorporate by reference all 
of our comments previously made on the same subject. I have to repeat 
myself because this amendment is, to some extent, the same as the 
amendment previously offered. This amendment would eliminate the 
requirement that the annual budget resolution include 20 budget 
functions. Once again, this is one of the opportunities we have as a 
House collectively, all of us, to have a debate in-depth about our 
priorities, whether we want to spend more for education or whether we 
need to spend more for defense or highways, priorities that are big 
functions of our budget. It takes away that opportunity. It also takes 
away our perception into the budget to see whether or not it is 
adequate to provide for the many things we want to do.
  Secondly, as I have said, there are a lot of centrifugal forces in 
this House. There is a lot of fragmentation of what we do. It is very 
hard in this House and in the Congress to keep a picture of the whole, 
of what is happening altogether. The budget resolution gives us the 
ability to keep the puzzle kind of together, so we can get a perception 
into what is happening altogether. This particular budget resolution 
would not even require that discretionary spending allocations be split 
between defense and nondefense.
  It would simply call for a total of all new budget authority and 
outlays. So the House would forgo the opportunity to say we want to do 
more for defense while we are going to do less for nondefense in order 
to pay for the additional commitment to defense. It calls for an 
aggregate statement of revenues, but nothing with respect to the 
House's expression to the Committee on Ways and Means as to what those 
revenues might be, no reconciliation instructions, so a key function of 
the Committee on the Budget, a key means of exerting discipline and 
control in the institution, would be lost, and then a simple statement 
of the surplus or deficit.
  To me this is letting the reins go, giving up what little control and 
structure we have got, what little ability we have got to keep a 
picture of the whole composed at all times. I think it is a bad idea.
  If we want to do away with the budget resolution, let us just repeal 
it altogether because what this leaves in place is practically useless.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I disagree with the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina on the 
basis of what I have seen here in the years that I have been here. I 
have a great deal of faith in the Committee on the Budget. I have a 
great deal of faith in the gentleman as the ranking member and the 
chairman, but I have seen this process literally almost collapse in 
recent years. My judgment is that the transparency that the gentleman 
requests is not there and that the reality is that the Committee on the 
Budget's responsibility is to do something which we have not been doing 
which is to make sure that we are managing within the dollars that we 
have and setting parameters around those particular dollars but should 
not carry over to the functions of how the individual amounts of money 
are going to be spent. In addition, we do not necessarily match up the 
appropriations with the various designations in the budget resolution 
which we have.
  It is my sense we need to break that impasse in some way or another 
so that we have some sense of the dollars we are spending in the House 
and the Senate and be working together in order to advance as far as 
the future is concerned.
  I reiterate what I have already stated, and, that is, that I think we 
need to start moving in that direction. But I would also point out to 
the gentleman, and I think this is important, that this amendment does 
not disallow doing as much as the Committee on the Budget wishes to do. 
They could still do what they have done before. It just will be a 
simplification methodology which could be used in case you cannot come 
to agreement on that or for whatever reason we are not able to get the 
budget resolution passed and it has to be simplified. That is what it 
is all about, trying to give more power to the Committee on the Budget 
to make sure we do have a budget in place that we have all voted on, 
shaken hands on and that we all are going to live under. I am trying to 
give flexibility to it, not a limited solution to the problem of not 
being able to get a budget done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am just suggesting to my good friend and someone for whom I have 
great respect that he gives so much flexibility to it that it is limp 
when we get through with it. There is nothing left. It is a process 
without any teeth, without any structure, without any starch to it. It 
is almost meaningless. It is the last rites for the budget process. If 
we are going to do this we may as well just not do it at all.
  A couple of speakers have noted that the functions that we designate 
in the budget resolution do not correspond to the 302(b) allocation 
made by the members of the Committee on Appropriations. That is true. 
That is an old, old compromise. If we dared back away from that 
compromise, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) would be on his 
feet, I am sure, protesting vigorously that usurpation of their 
authority on the Committee on Appropriations. But it is an opportunity.
  When the Committee on the Budget and one party or the other party 
wants to propose new initiatives in certain areas, it might be 
education, it might be NIH in health care, it might be defense, it 
gives us an opportunity to make that proposal, to show what the 
consequences are for the bottom line and for trade-offs against other 
programmatic areas and then allows us to have a debate on that subject 
on the House floor.
  These aggregate numbers do not signify anything. They do not really 
tell you what is going to be cut and what is going to be increased, and 
that is the problem I have. We do not get the process started with that 
sort of message and direction that the budget resolution now gives to 
the process and the opportunity it gives to the House as a whole to 
make a statement of priorities and have something of a debate on 
programmatic priorities for the next 1 to 5 fiscal years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It does encompass total revenues, total budget authority and outlays, 
the surplus or deficit and the resultant debt. To me that is what the 
Committee on the Budget should be doing, not necessarily setting the 
priorities in the 20 different areas which is done now, although that 
could still happen. That is why I think that we should adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This would be making a distinction between defense and nondefense 
spending. This gives you one big aggregate for all discretionary 
spending. That is how far back it takes us and how little definition it 
leaves to what we end up

[[Page 14003]]

doing. We come up with three or four big numbers and that is the end of 
the budget. The gentleman is suggesting we could do something much more 
elaborate, but this would be the only statutory prerogative we would 
have which would mean that pretty soon we would probably not be doing 
any function allocations at all. It would not have any statutory basis. 
I am not saying they get great deference from the Committee on 
Appropriations today, but once we reduce the budget process to this, I 
doubt the Committee on the Budget would get any deference from the 
appropriators.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. On that particular subject, there may be times when we do 
need to put more money into discretionary spending. We may be in one of 
those times now in terms of the war in Iraq. There may be other 
emergency things that we have to deal with. For that reason, I believe 
that flexibility should be in the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove 
the requirement that 20 functional categories be included in the annual 
budget resolution, and grant the Budget Committee the discretion to 
include such categories, if any, as they deem appropriate.
  With this change to the 30-year old Congressional Budget Act, we can 
properly return debate to the ``big picture,'' macroeconomic budget 
issues that were intended to be the focus of the budget resolution when 
the act was passed in 1974.
  Annual budget debates have been bogged down in recent years by often 
bitter disputes over funding for scores of Federal programs within 
these 20 budget functions. This has become an enormous distraction for 
lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and harmed the process of making 
rational decisions about overall Federal fiscal policy.
  The 20 functional categories are intended to illustrate how the 
Federal spending could be allocated under the budget resolution. 
However, the functions do not direct how much money is eventually spent 
for programs covered by each specific function. Function totals also do 
not specifically mandate how the Appropriations Committee makes 
allocations to its 13 subcommittees.
  Yet, despite the reality that these functions have no real power over 
actual spending decisions, every year tremendous time, energy and 
resources are dedicated to influencing the levels of particular 
functions.
  Interest groups mobilize and massive lobbying efforts are undertaken 
to try and affect often very slight changes in functions' totals and in 
budget report language. Yet, at the end of the day, these efforts do 
not effect the spending and taxing decisions the Congress will make 
later in the year.
  This is a severe distraction from critically important budget 
questions that deserve attention and clear debate.
  In the midst of the debate over how much to spend on this program, or 
that program or in this function or that function--what can get lost 
are the most fundamental matters of what the budget is going to look 
like:
  How much is the government going to spend next year?
  How much is going to be collected in taxes?
  Will the government's budget be in balance? Or will there be a 
surplus or deficit?
  How do all of these affect the public debt?
  I believe we must clear away the distractions that have overtaken the 
budget process. The first step in the annual budget process in Congress 
should be discussion and reaching agreement on overall spending, tax 
and debt levels in a budget resolution. We must be a real handle on the 
federal budget and the macroeconomic factors that the budget resolution 
is designed to guide and over which it actually has control.
  Decisions on spending on individual programs do not need to be 
debated twice--once during consideration of the budget resolution and 
again during open debate on Appropriations bills.
  As the fiscal challenges that our Nation will face with the effects 
of a retiring Baby Boom generation, it is more important than ever to 
focus our budget decisions in a manner that best directs attention to 
the critical choices we face today and the effects they will have on 
our children and the country's future.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House 
Report 108-566.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 2, after line 3, insert the following:

 TITLE I--EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS AND PAY-AS-YOU-GO 
                              REQUIREMENTS

       Redesignate sections 2 through 9 as sections 101 through 
     108, respectively, and, at the end, add the following new 
     titles:

   TITLE II--SPENDING CAPS ON GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENTS AND MANDATORIES

     SEC. 201. SPENDING CAPS ON GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENTS AND 
                   MANDATORIES.

       (a) Control of Entitlements and Mandatories.--The Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by adding after section 252 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 252A. ENFORCING CONTROLS ON DIRECT SPENDING.

       ``(a) Cap on Growth of Entitlements.--Effective for fiscal 
     year 2005 and for each ensuing fiscal year, the total level 
     of direct spending for all direct spending programs, 
     projects, and activities (excluding social security) for any 
     such fiscal year shall not exceed the total level of spending 
     for all such programs, projects, and activities for the 
     previous fiscal year after the direct spending for each such 
     program, project, or activity is increased by the higher of 
     the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
     Consumers or the inflator (if any) applicable to that 
     program, project, or activity and the growth in eligible 
     population for such, project, or activity.
       ``(b) Sequestration.--Within 15 days after Congress 
     adjourns to end a session (other than of the second session 
     of the One Hundred Eighth Congress), and on the same day as a 
     sequestration (if any) under section 251, there shall be a 
     sequestration to reduce the amount of direct spending for the 
     fiscal year beginning in the year the Congress adjourns by 
     any amount necessary to reduce such spending to the level set 
     forth in subsection (a) unless that amount is less than 
     $250,000,000.
       ``(c) Uniform Reductions; Limitations.--The amount required 
     to be sequestered for the fiscal year under subsection (a) 
     shall be obtained from nonexempt direct spending accounts by 
     actions taken in the following order:
       ``(1) First.--The reductions in the programs specified in 
     section 256(a) (National Wool Act and special milk), section 
     256(b) (student loans), and section 256(c) (foster care and 
     adoption assistance) shall be made.
       ``(2) Second.--Any additional reductions that may be 
     required shall be achieved by reducing each remaining 
     nonexempt direct spending account by the uniform percentage 
     necessary to achieve those additional reductions, except 
     that--
       ``(A) the low-income programs specified in section 256(d) 
     shall not be reduced by more than 2 percent;
       ``(B) the retirement and veterans benefits specified in 
     sections 256(f), (g), and (h) shall not be reduced by more 
     than 2 percent in the manner specified in that section; and
       ``(C) the medicare programs shall not be reduced by more 
     than 2 percent in the manner specified in section 256(i).

     The limitations set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) 
     shall be applied iteratively, and after each iteration the 
     uniform percentage applicable to all other programs under 
     this paragraph shall be increased (if necessary) to a level 
     sufficient to achieve the reductions required by this 
     paragraph.
       ``(d) Exclusion of Medicare Prescription Drug Program Until 
     Fully Operational.--For purposes of this section with respect 
     to the limitation under subsection (a) for a fiscal year 
     before fiscal year 2008, direct spending programs and direct 
     spending shall not be construed to include part D of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (or spending under part C of 
     such title that is attributable to such part D).''.
       (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents set 
     forth in 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 252 the following new item:

``Sec. 252A. Enforcing controls on direct spending.''.

[[Page 14004]]



     SEC. 202. EXEMPT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

       Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 255. EXEMPT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Social Security Benefits; Tier I Railroad Retirement 
     Benefits; and Certain Medicare Benefits.--(1) Benefits 
     payable under the old-age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance program established under title II of the Social 
     Security Act, and benefits payable under section 3(a), 
     3(f)(3), 4(a), or 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 
     1974, shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued 
     under this part.
       ``(2) Payments made under part A of title XVIII (relating 
     to part A medicare hospital insurance benefits) of the Social 
     Security Act and payments made under part C of such title 
     (relating to the Medicare Advantage program) insofar as they 
     are attributable to part A of such title shall be exempt from 
     reduction under any order issued under this part.
       ``(b) Descriptions and Lists.--The following budget 
     accounts or activities shall be exempt from sequestration:
       ``(1) net interest;
       ``(2) all payments to trust funds from excise taxes or 
     other receipts or collections properly creditable to those 
     trust funds;
       ``(3) all payments from one Federal direct spending budget 
     account to another Federal budget account; and all 
     intragovernmental funds including those from which funding is 
     derived primarily from other Government accounts, except to 
     the extent that such funds are augmented by direct 
     appropriations for the fiscal year for which the order is in 
     effect;
       ``(4) activities resulting from private donations, 
     bequests, or voluntary contributions to the Government;
       ``(5) payments from any revolving fund or trust-revolving 
     fund (or similar activity) that provides deposit insurance or 
     other Government insurance, Government guarantees, or any 
     other form of contingent liability, to the extent those 
     payments result from contractual or other legally binding 
     commitments of the Government at the time of any 
     sequestration;
       ``(6) credit liquidating and financing accounts;
       ``(7) the following accounts, which largely fulfill 
     requirements of the Constitution or otherwise make payments 
     to which the Government is committed:
       ``Administration of Territories, Northern Mariana Islands 
     Covenant grants (14-0412-0-1-806);
       ``Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund, payment of 
     claims (84-8930-0-7-705);
       ``Bureau of Indian Affairs, miscellaneous payments to 
     Indians (14-230-0-1-452);
       ``Bureau of Indian Affairs, miscellaneous trust funds, 
     tribal trust funds (14-9973-0-7-999);
       ``Claims, defense;
       ``Claims, judgments, and relief act (20-185-0-1-806);
       ``Compact of Free Association, economic assistance pursuant 
     to Public Law 99 (14-0414-0-1-806);
       ``Compensation of the President (11-0001-0-1-802);
       ``Customs Service, miscellaneous permanent appropriations 
     (20-9992-0-2-852);
       ``Eastern Indian land claims settlement fund (14-2202-0-1-
     806);
       ``Farm Credit Administration, Limitation on Administration 
     Expenses (78-4131-0-3-351);
       ``Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation, 
     interest payments (20-1850-0-1-351);
       ``Internal Revenue collections of Puerto Rico (20-5737-0-2-
     852);
       ``Panama Canal Commission, operating expenses and capital 
     outlay (95-5190-0-2-403);
       ``Payments of Vietnam and USS Pueblo prisoner-of-war claims 
     (15-0104-0-1-153);
       ``Payments to copyright owners (03-5175-0-2-376);
       ``Payments to health care trust funds (75-0580-0-1-571);
       ``Payments to social security trust funds (75-0404-0-1-
     651);
       ``Payments to the United States territories, fiscal 
     assistance (14-0418-0-1-801);
       ``Payments to widows and heirs of deceased Members of 
     Congress (00-0215-0-1-801);
       ``Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund (16-4204-0-3-
     601);
       ``Salaries of Article III judges;
       ``Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, interest 
     payments (46-0300-0-1-401);
       ``(8) the following noncredit special, revolving, or trust-
     revolving funds:
       ``Coinage profit fund (20-5811-0-2-803);
       ``Comptroller of the Currency;
       ``Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision;
       ``Exchange Stabilization Fund (20-4444-0-3-155);
       ``Federal Housing Finance Board;
       ``Foreign Military Sales trust fund (11-82232-0-7-155);
       ``National Credit Union Administration, central liquidating 
     facility (25-4470-0-3-373);
       ``National Credit Union Administration, credit union 
     insurance fund (25-4468-0-3-373);
       ``National Credit Union Administration operating fund (25-
     4056-0-3-373); and
       ``Resolution Trust Corporation Revolving Fund (22-4055-0-3-
     373);
       ``(9) Thrift Savings Fund;
       ``(10) appropriations for the District of Columbia to the 
     extent they are appropriations of locally raised funds;
       ``(11)(A) any amount paid as regular unemployment 
     compensation by a State from its account in the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund (established by section 904(a) of the Social 
     Security Act);
       ``(B) any advance made to a State from the Federal 
     unemployment account (established by section 904(g) of such 
     Act) under title XII of such Act and any advance appropriated 
     to the Federal unemployment account pursuant to section 1203 
     of such Act; and
       ``(C) any payment made from the Federal Employees 
     Compensation Account (as established under section 909 of 
     such Act) for the purpose of carrying out chapter 85 of title 
     5, United States Code, and funds appropriated or transferred 
     to or otherwise deposited in such Account; and
       ``(12)(A) FDIC, Bank Insurance Fund (51-4064-0-3-373);
       ``(B) FDIC, FSLIC Resolution Fund (51-4065-0-3-373); and
       ``(C) FDIC, Savings Association Insurance Fund (51-4066-0-
     3-373);
       ``(c) Federal Retirement and Disability Accounts.--The 
     following Federal retirement and disability accounts shall be 
     exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part:
       ``Civil service retirement and disability fund (24-8135-0-
     7-602).
       ``Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (20-8144-0-7-601).
       ``Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund (19-8186-
     0-7-602).
       ``District of Columbia Judicial Retirement and Survivors 
     Annuity Fund (20-8212-0-7-602).
       ``Judicial Survivors' Annuities Fund (10-8110-0-7-602).
       ``Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts (60-0113-0-
     1-601).
       ``Tax Court Judges Survivors Annuity Fund (23-8115-0-7-
     602).
       ``Employees Life Insurance Fund (24-8424-0-8-602).
       ``(d) Federal Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law other than 
     paragraph (3), administrative expenses incurred by the 
     departments and agencies, including independent agencies, of 
     the Government in connection with any program, project, 
     activity, or account shall be subject to reduction pursuant 
     to any sequestration order, without regard to any exemption, 
     exception, limitation, or special rule otherwise applicable 
     with respect to such program, project, activity, or account, 
     and regardless of whether the program, project, activity, or 
     account is self-supporting and does not receive 
     appropriations.
       ``(2) Payments made by the Government to reimburse or match 
     administrative costs incurred by a State or political 
     subdivision under or in connection with any program, project, 
     activity, or account shall not be considered administrative 
     expenses of the Government for purposes of this section, and 
     shall be subject to sequestration to the extent (and only to 
     the extent) that other payments made by the Government under 
     or in connection with that program, project, activity, or 
     account are subject to that reduction or sequestration; 
     except that Federal payments made to a State as reimbursement 
     of administrative costs incurred by that State under or in 
     connection with the unemployment compensation programs 
     specified in subsection (a)(11) shall be subject to reduction 
     or sequestration under this part notwithstanding the 
     exemption otherwise granted to such programs under that 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     administrative expenses of the following programs shall be 
     exempt from sequestration:
       ``(A) Comptroller of the Currency.
       ``(B) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
       ``(C) Office of Thrift Supervision.
       ``(D) National Credit Union Administration.
       ``(E) National Credit Union Administration, central 
     liquidity facility.
       ``(F) Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
       ``(G) Resolution Funding Corporation.
       ``(H) Resolution Trust Corporation.
       ``(I) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
       ``(e) Veterans' Programs.--The following programs shall be 
     exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part:
       ``General Post Funds (36-8180-0-7-705).
       ``Veterans Insurance and Indemnities (36-0120-0-1-701).
       ``Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance Funds (36-4012-0-3-
     701).
       ``Veterans Reopened Insurance Fund (36-4010-0-3-701).
       ``Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Fund (36-4009-0-3-
     701).
       ``Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Account (36-8133-0-7-
     702).
       ``National Service Life Insurance Fund (36-8132-0-7-701).
       ``United States Government Life Insurance Fund (36-8150-0-
     7-701).
       ``Veterans Special Life Insurance Fund (36-8455-0-8-701).
       ``(f) Optional Exemption of Defense and Homeland Security 
     Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may, with respect to any 
     defense or homeland security

[[Page 14005]]

     account, exempt that account from sequestration or provide 
     for a lower uniform percentage reduction than would otherwise 
     apply.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The President may not use the authority 
     provided by paragraph (1) unless the President notifies the 
     Congress of the manner in which such authority will be 
     exercised on or before the date specified in section 254(a) 
     for the budget year.''.

     SEC. 203. EXCEPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SPECIAL RULES.

       (a) In General.--Section 256 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 256. EXCEPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SPECIAL RULES.

       ``(a) National Wool Act and the Special Milk Program.--
     Automatic spending increases are increases in outlays due to 
     changes in indexes in the following programs:
       ``(1) National Wool Act; and
       ``(2) Special milk program.
     In those programs all amounts other than the automatic 
     spending increases shall be exempt from reduction under any 
     sequestration order.
       ``(b) Student Loans.--For all student loans under part B or 
     D of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 made during 
     the period when a sequestration order under section 254 is in 
     effect as required by section 252 or 253, origination fees 
     under sections 438(c)(2) and 455(c) of that Act shall each be 
     increased by 0.50 percentage point.
       ``(c) Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Programs.--Any 
     sequestration order shall make the reduction otherwise 
     required under the foster care and adoption assistance 
     programs (established by part E of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act) only with respect to payments and expenditures 
     made by States in which increases in foster care maintenance 
     payment rates or adoption assistance payment rates (or both) 
     are to take effect during the fiscal year involved, and only 
     to the extent that the required reduction can be accomplished 
     by applying a uniform percentage reduction to the Federal 
     matching payments that each such State would otherwise 
     receive under section 474 of that Act (for such fiscal year) 
     for that portion of the State's payments attributable to the 
     increases taking effect during that year. No State's matching 
     payments from the Government for foster care maintenance 
     payments or for adoption assistance maintenance payments may 
     be reduced by a percentage exceeding the applicable domestic 
     sequestration percentage. No State may, after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, make any change in the timetable for 
     making payments under a State plan approved under part E of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act which has the effect of 
     changing the fiscal year in which expenditures under such 
     part are made.
       ``(d) Low-Income Programs.--(1) Benefit payments or 
     payments to States or other entities for the programs listed 
     in paragraph (2) shall not be reduced by more than 2 percent 
     under any sequestration order. When reduced under an end-of-
     session sequestration order, those benefit reductions shall 
     occur starting with the payment made at the start of January. 
     When reduced under a within-session sequestration order, 
     those benefit reductions shall occur starting with the next 
     periodic payment.
       ``(2) The programs referred to in paragraph (1) are the 
     following:
       ``Child Nutrition (12-3539-0-1-605).
       ``Food Stamp Programs (12-3505-0-1-605).
       ``Grants to States for Medicaid (75-0512-0-1-551).
       ``State Children's Health Insurance Fund (75-0515-0-1-551).
       ``Supplemental Security Income Program (75-0406-0-1-609).
       ``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (75-1552-0-1-
     609).
       ``Special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
     infants, and children (WIC) (12-3510-0-1-605).
       ``(e) Veterans' Medical Care.--The maximum permissible 
     reduction in budget authority for Veterans' medical care (36-
     0160-0-1-703) for any fiscal year, pursuant to an order 
     issued under section 254, shall be 2 percent.
       ``(f) Federal Retirement Programs.--
       ``(1) For each of the programs listed in paragraph (2) and 
     except as provided in paragraph (3), monthly (or other 
     periodic) benefit payments shall be reduced by the uniform 
     percentage applicable to direct spending sequestrations for 
     such programs, which shall in no case exceed 2 percent under 
     any sequestration order. When reduced under an end-of-session 
     sequestration order, those benefit reductions shall occur 
     starting with the payment made at the start of January or 7 
     weeks after the order is issued, whichever is later. When 
     reduced under a within-session sequestration order, those 
     benefit reductions shall occur starting with the next 
     periodic payment.
       ``(2) The programs subject to paragraph (1) are:
       ``Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     Fund (56-3400-0-1-054).
       ``Comptrollers General Retirement System (05-0107-0-1-801).
       ``Judicial Officer' Retirement Fund (10-8122-0-7-602).
       ``Claims Judges' Retirement Fund (10-8124-0-7-602).
       ``Pensions for former Presidents (47-0105-0-1-802).
       ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     Retirement (13-1450-0-1-306).
       ``Railroad Industry Pension Fund (60-8011-0-7-601).
       ``Retired pay, Coast Guard (70-0602-0-1-403).
       ``Retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned 
     officers, Public Health Service (75-0379-0-1-551).
       ``Payments to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund 
     (24-0200-0-1-805).
       ``Payments to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund (72-1036-0-1-153).
       ``Payments to Judiciary Trust Funds (10-0941-0-1-752).
       ``(g) Veterans Programs.--To achieve the total percentage 
     reduction required by any order issued under this part, the 
     percentage reduction that shall apply to payments under the 
     following programs shall in no event exceed 2 percent:
       ``Canteen Service Revolving Fund (36-4014-0-3-705).
       ``Medical Center Research Organizations (36-4026-0-3-703).
       ``Disability Compensation Benefits (36-0102-0-1-701).
       ``Education Benefits (36-0137-0-1-702).
       ``Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits (36-
     0135-0-1-702).
       ``Pensions Benefits (36-0154-0-1-701).
       ``Burial Benefits (36-0139-0-1-701).
       ``Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans For Homeless 
     Veterans Program Account (36-1119-0-1-704).
       ``Housing Direct Loan Financing Account (36-4127-0-1-704).
       ``Housing Guaranteed Loan Financing Account (36-4129-0-3-
     704).
       ``Vocational Rehabilitation and Education Direct Loan 
     Financing Account (36-4259-0-3-702).
       ``(h) Military Health Care and Retirement.--To achieve the 
     total percentage reduction in military retirement required by 
     any order issued under this part, the percentage reduction 
     that shall apply to payments under the Military retirement 
     fund (97-8097-0-7-602), payments to the military retirement 
     fund (97-0040-0-1-054), and the Defense Health Program (97-
     0130-0-1-051) shall in no event exceed 2 percent.
       ``(i) Medicare Program.--
       ``(1) Calculation of reduction in individual payment 
     amounts.--To achieve the total percentage reduction in those 
     programs required by any order issued under this part, the 
     percentage reduction that shall apply to payments under the 
     health insurance programs under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (other than payments described in section 
     255(a)(2)) that are subject to such order for services 
     furnished after any sequestration order is issued shall be 
     such that the reduction made in payments under that order 
     shall achieve the required total percentage reduction in 
     those payments for that fiscal year as determined on a 12-
     month basis. However, the percentage reduction under any such 
     program shall in no case exceed 2 percent under any 
     sequestration order.
       ``(2) Timing of application of reductions.--If a reduction 
     is made under paragraph (1) in payment amounts pursuant to a 
     sequestration order, the reduction shall be applied to 
     payment for services furnished after the effective date of 
     the order.
       ``(3) No increase in beneficiary charges in assignment-
     related cases.--If a reduction in payment amounts is made 
     under paragraph (1) for services for which payment under part 
     B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act is made on the 
     basis of an assignment described in section 
     1842(b)(3)(B)(ii), in accordance with section 1842(b)(6)(B), 
     or under the procedure described in section 1870(f)(1) of 
     such Act, the person furnishing the services shall be 
     considered to have accepted payment of the reasonable charge 
     for the services, less any reduction in payment amount made 
     pursuant to a sequestration order, as payment in full.
       ``(4) Application to parts c and d.--The reductions 
     otherwise required under parts C and D of title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act with respect to a fiscal year shall be 
     applied to the calendar year that begins after the end of the 
     fiscal year to which the applicable sequestration order 
     applies.
       ``(j) Federal Pay.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of any order issued under 
     section 254, new budget authority to pay Federal personnel 
     shall be reduced by the applicable uniform percentage, but no 
     sequestration order may reduce or have the effect of reducing 
     the rate of pay to which any individual is entitled under any 
     statutory pay system (as increased by any amount payable 
     under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, or section 
     302 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990) 
     or the rate of any element of military pay to which any 
     individual is entitled under title 37, United States Code, or 
     any increase in rates of pay which is scheduled to take 
     effect under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, 
     section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, or any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `statutory pay system' shall have the 
     meaning given that term in section 5302(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code.

[[Page 14006]]

       ``(B) The term `elements of military pay' means--
       ``(i) the elements of compensation of members of the 
     uniformed services specified in section 1009 of title 37, 
     United States Code,
       ``(ii) allowances provided members of the uniformed 
     services under sections 403a and 405 of such title, and
       ``(iii) cadet pay and midshipman pay under section 203(c) 
     of such title.
       ``(C) The term `uniformed services' shall have the meaning 
     given that term in section 101(3) of title 37, United States 
     Code.
       ``(k) Child Support Enforcement Program.--Any sequestration 
     order shall accomplish the full amount of any required 
     reduction in expenditures under sections 455 and 458 of the 
     Social Security Act by reducing the Federal matching rate for 
     State administrative costs under such program, as specified 
     (for the fiscal year involved) in section 455(a) of such Act, 
     to the extent necessary to reduce such expenditures by that 
     amount.
       ``(l) Extended Unemployment Compensation.--(1) A State may 
     reduce each weekly benefit payment made under the Federal-
     State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 for any 
     week of unemployment occurring during any period with respect 
     to which payments are reduced under an order issued under 
     this title by a percentage not to exceed the percentage by 
     which the Federal payment to the State under section 204 of 
     such Act is to be reduced for such week as a result of such 
     order.
       ``(2) A reduction by a State in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be considered as a failure to 
     fulfill the requirements of section 3304(a)(11) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
       ``(m) Commodity Credit Corporation.--
       ``(1) Powers and authorities of the commodity credit 
     corporation.--This title shall not restrict the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation in the discharge of its authority and 
     responsibility as a corporation to buy and sell commodities 
     in world trade, to use the proceeds as a revolving fund to 
     meet other obligations and otherwise operate as a 
     corporation, the purpose for which it was created.
       ``(2) Reduction in payments made under contracts.--(A) 
     Payments and loan eligibility under any contract entered into 
     with a person by the Commodity Credit Corporation prior to 
     the time any sequestration order has been issued shall not be 
     reduced by an order subsequently issued. Subject to 
     subparagraph (B), after any sequestration order is issued for 
     a fiscal year, any cash payments made by the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation--
       ``(i) under the terms of any one-year contract entered into 
     in or after such fiscal year and after the issuance of the 
     order; and
       ``(ii) out of an entitlement account,

     to any person (including any producer, lender, or guarantee 
     entity) shall be subject to reduction under the order.
       ``(B) Each contract entered into with producers or producer 
     cooperatives with respect to a particular crop of a commodity 
     and subject to reduction under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     reduced in accordance with the same terms and conditions. If 
     some, but not all, contracts applicable to a crop of a 
     commodity have been entered into prior to the issuance of any 
     sequestration order, the order shall provide that the 
     necessary reduction in payments under contracts applicable to 
     the commodity be uniformly applied to all contracts for 
     succeeding crops of the commodity, under the authority 
     provided in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Delayed reduction in outlays permissible.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if any 
     sequestration order is issued with respect to a fiscal year, 
     any reduction under the order applicable to contracts 
     described in paragraph (2) may provide for reductions in 
     outlays for the account involved to occur in the fiscal years 
     following the fiscal year to which the order applies.
       ``(4) Uniform percentage rate of reduction and other 
     limitations.--All reductions described in paragraph (2) that 
     are required to be made in connection with any sequestration 
     order with respect to a fiscal year--
       ``(A) shall be made so as to ensure that outlays for each 
     program, project, activity, or account involved are reduced 
     by a percentage rate that is uniform for all such programs, 
     projects, activities, and accounts, and may not be made so as 
     to achieve a percentage rate of reduction in any such item 
     exceeding the rate specified in the order; and
       ``(B) with respect to commodity price support and income 
     protection programs, shall be made in such manner and under 
     such procedures as will attempt to ensure that--
       ``(i) uncertainty as to the scope of benefits under any 
     such program is minimized;
       ``(ii) any instability in market prices for agricultural 
     commodities resulting from the reduction is minimized; and
       ``(iii) normal production and marketing relationships among 
     agricultural commodities (including both contract and non-
     contract commodities) are not distorted.

     In meeting the criterion set out in clause (iii) of 
     subparagraph (B) of the preceding sentence, the President 
     shall take into consideration that reductions under an order 
     may apply to programs for two or more agricultural 
     commodities that use the same type of production or marketing 
     resources or that are alternative commodities among which a 
     producer could choose in making annual production decisions.
       ``(5) Certain authority not to be limited.--Nothing in this 
     title shall limit or reduce in any way any appropriation that 
     provides the Commodity Credit Corporation with funds to cover 
     the Corporation's net realized losses.
       ``(n) Postal Service Fund.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any sequestration of the Postal Service 
     Fund shall be accomplished by a payment from that Fund to the 
     General Fund of the Treasury, and the Postmaster General of 
     the United States shall make the full amount of that payment 
     during the fiscal year to which the presidential 
     sequestration order applies.
       ``(o) Effects of Sequestration.--The effects of 
     sequestration shall be as follows:
       ``(1) Budgetary resources sequestered from any account 
     other than an entitlement trust, special, or revolving fund 
     account shall revert to the Treasury and be permanently 
     canceled.
       ``(2) Except as otherwise provided, the same percentage 
     sequestration shall apply to all programs, projects, and 
     activities within a budget account (with programs, projects, 
     and activities as delineated in the appropriation Act or 
     accompanying report for the relevant fiscal year covering 
     that account, or for accounts not included in appropriation 
     Acts, as delineated in the most recently submitted 
     President's budget).
       ``(3) Administrative regulations or similar actions 
     implementing a sequestration shall be made within 120 days of 
     the sequestration order. To the extent that formula 
     allocations differ at different levels of budgetary resources 
     within an account, program, project, or activity, the 
     sequestration shall be interpreted as producing a lower total 
     appropriation, with that lower appropriation being obligated 
     as though it had been the pre-sequestration appropriation and 
     no sequestration had occurred.
       ``(4) Except as otherwise provided, obligations in 
     sequestered direct spending accounts shall be reduced in the 
     fiscal year in which a sequestration occurs and in all 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(5) If an automatic spending increase is sequestered, the 
     increase (in the applicable index) that was disregarded as a 
     result of that sequestration shall not be taken into account 
     in any subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(6) Except as otherwise provided, sequestration in 
     accounts for which obligations are indefinite shall be taken 
     in a manner to ensure that obligations in the fiscal year of 
     a sequestration and succeeding fiscal years are reduced, from 
     the level that would actually have occurred, by the 
     applicable sequestration percentage.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by amending the item relating 
     to section 256 to read as follows:

``Sec. 256. Exceptions, limitations, and special rules.''.

     SEC. 204. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 is amended as follows:
       (1) Section 251(a)(1) is amended by inserting ``, section 
     252A,'' after ``section 252''.
       (2) Section 254(c)(4)(B) is amended by inserting ``or 
     section 252A'' after ``section 252''.
       (3) Section 254(c) is amended by redesignating paragraph 
     (5) as paragraph (6) and by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Direct spending control sequestration reports.--The 
     preview reports shall set forth, for the current year and the 
     budget year, estimates for each of the following:
       ``(A) The total level of direct spending for all programs, 
     projects, and activities (excluding social security).
       ``(B) The sequestration percentage or (if the required 
     sequestration percentage is greater than the maximum 
     allowable percentage for medicare) percentages necessary to 
     comply with section 252A.''.
       (4) Section 254(f) is amended by redesignating paragraphs 
     (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Direct spending control sequestration reports.--The 
     final reports shall contain all the information required in 
     the direct spending control sequestration preview reports. In 
     addition, these reports shall contain, for the budget year, 
     for each account to be sequestered, estimates of the baseline 
     level of sequesterable budgetary resources and resulting 
     outlays and the amount of budgetary resources to be 
     sequestered and resulting outlay reductions. The reports 
     shall also contain estimates of the effects on outlays of the 
     sequestration in each outyear for direct spending 
     programs.''.
       (5) Section 258C(a)(1) is amended by inserting ``, 252A,'' 
     after ``section 252''.

     TITLE III--LONG-TERM UNFUNDED OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 301. LONG-TERM UNFUNDED OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 14007]]



                 PART C--LONG-TERM UNFUNDED OBLIGATIONS

     ``SEC. 441. ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM UNFUNDED OBLIGATIONS.

       ``Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the President's budget 
     shall include an analysis of long-term unfunded obligations. 
     This analysis shall include:
       ``(1) An analysis of the impact of long-term unfunded 
     obligations in applicable entitlement programs on the long-
     term level of unified budget outlays and the unified budget 
     surplus or deficit, in relation to the projected level of the 
     Gross Domestic Product.
       ``(2) A report on the impact of legislation enacted during 
     the previous session of Congress that increases the long-term 
     unfunded obligation in any applicable group of entitlement 
     program.
       ``(3) An analysis of the impact of legislation proposed in 
     the President's budget on the long-term unfunded obligation 
     in any applicable entitlement program.

     ``SEC. 442. STANDARD FOR DETERMINING INCREASE IN LONG-TERM 
                   UNFUNDED OBLIGATION.

       ``For the purpose of this part, legislation shall be 
     considered to increase the long-term unfunded obligation of 
     an applicable group of entitlement programs if it either--
       ``(1) increases the excess of the discounted present value 
     of the expenditures of programs in the group above the 
     discounted present value of the dedicated receipts of 
     programs in the group over a long-term estimating period by 
     more than an applicable threshold; or
       ``(2) increases the dollar level of the expenditures of 
     programs in the group above the dedicated receipts of 
     programs in the group above the dedicated receipts of 
     programs in the group in the last year of the estimating 
     period by more than the applicable threshold.

     ``SEC. 443. LONG-TERM UNFUNDED OBLIGATION ANALYSES BY 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

       ``The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to 
     the extent practicable, prepare for each bill or resolution 
     of a public character reported by any committee of the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate (except the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House), and submit to such committee--
       ``(1) an estimate of any increase of the long-term unfunded 
     obligation of any applicable entitlement program which would 
     be incurred in carrying out such bill or resolution as 
     measured by the increase of the excess of the discounted 
     present value of the expenditures of such program above the 
     discounted present value of the dedicated receipts of such 
     program over a long-term estimating period by more than an 
     applicable threshold; and
       ``(2) an estimate of any increase in the dollar level of 
     the expenditures of such program above the dedicated receipts 
     of such program above the dedicated receipts of such program 
     in the last year of the estimating period by more than the 
     applicable threshold.

     The estimates and description so submitted shall be included 
     in the report accompanying such bill or resolution if timely 
     submitted to such committee before such report is filed.

     ``SEC. 444. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part--
       ``(1) the term `applicable entitlement program' shall be 
     defined as any one of the following programs:
       ``(A) Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.
       ``(B) Medicare (combined hospital insurance and 
     supplemental medical insurance).
       ``(C) Civilian retirement and disability (combined Civil 
     Service Retirement System and Federal Employees Retirement 
     System).
       ``(D) Foreign Service Retirement and Disability (combined 
     Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and Foreign 
     Service Pension System).
       ``(E) Retired Employees Health Benefits.
       ``(F) Military Retirement System.
       ``(G) Uniformed Services Retiree Health Care System.
       ``(H) Railroad Retirement System (combined Rail Industry 
     Pension Fund, Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account, and 
     National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust).
       ``(I) Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
       ``(J) For estimates made on or after January 1, 2006, 
     veterans disability compensation.
       ``(K) Any other entitlement program with regularly 
     available long-term estimates.
       ``(2) The term `entitlement program with regularly 
     available long-term estimates' means a program for which the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in consultation 
     with the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate and the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget, has determined that it is feasible 
     to make long-term estimates of expenditures and dedicated 
     receipts based on explicit demographic, economic, and other 
     estimating assumptions. The Director shall notify the House 
     and Senate Committees on the Budget in writing, whenever he 
     or she makes such a determination.
       ``(3) The term `applicable group of entitlement programs' 
     shall be defined as any of the following:
       ``(A) Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.
       ``(B) All applicable entitlement programs except Old Age, 
     Survivors, and Disability Insurance.
       ``(4) The term `long-term estimating period' shall be 
     defined as 75 years, starting with the current year, for all 
     applicable entitlement programs except for Old Age, 
     Survivors, and Disability Insurance. For Old Age, Survivors, 
     and Disability Insurance, the term shall be defined as the 
     infinite period of years utilized in the most recent annual 
     report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 
     201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.
       ``(5) The term `last year of the estimating period' shall 
     be defined as the 75th year of the long-term estimating 
     period.
       ``(6) The term `dedicated receipts' shall be defined, for 
     all applicable entitlement programs other than Medicare, as 
     taxes and fees received from the public, payments received 
     from Federal agencies on behalf of Federal agency employees 
     who are participants in the program, transfers received by 
     the program under section 7(c)(2) of the Railroad Retirement 
     Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(c)(2)), and transfers from the 
     general fund of amounts equivalent to income tax receipts 
     under section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code. Dedicated 
     receipts shall not include payments from the general fund to 
     amortize a program's unfunded liability or payments of 
     interest on a program's trust fund holdings. For Medicare, 
     `dedicated receipts' shall be defined according to section 
     801(c)(3) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003.
       ``(7) The term `expenditures' shall be defined, for all 
     applicable entitlement programs other than Medicare, to 
     include benefit payments, administrative expenses to the 
     extent paid from a dedicated fund, and transfers to other 
     programs made under section 7(c)(2) of the Railroad 
     Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(c)(2)). For Medicare, 
     `expenditures' shall be defined according to section 
     801(c)(4) of the Medicare prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003.
       ``(8) The term `applicable threshold' shall be defined as:
       ``(A) For a group of applicable entitlement programs over a 
     long-term estimating period--
       ``(i) 0.02 percent of the present value of the taxable 
     payroll of the group of programs over the estimating period, 
     for legislation affecting Old Age, Survivors, and Disability 
     Insurance or Medicare; and
       ``(ii) 1 percent of the present value of the expenditures 
     over the estimating period of the programs in the group that 
     are affected by the legislation.
       ``(B) For a group of applicable entitlement programs in the 
     last year of the estimating period--
       ``(i) 0.02 percent of the taxable payroll of the group of 
     programs in that year, for legislation affecting Old Age, 
     Survivors, and Disability Insurance or Medicare;
       ``(ii) 0.01 percent of Gross Domestic Product in that year; 
     or
       ``(iii) 1 percent of the expenditures in that year of the 
     programs in the group that are affected by the 
     legislation.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 428 the following:



                ``Part C--Long-Term Unfunded Obligations

``Sec. 441. Analysis of long-term unfunded obligations.
``Sec. 442. Standard for determining increase in long-term unfunded 
              obligation.
``Sec. 443. Long-term unfunded obligation analyses by congressional 
              budget office.
``Sec. 444. Definitions.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 692, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I want to offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Chairman Nussle) for his fine work on an incredibly important topic 
that we take up today, and that is the topic of limiting the size, the 
scope, the power, the expense of government. In his underlying bill, he 
has placed a cap on the growth, on the growth of discretionary 
spending.
  This amendment would also offer a cap on the growth of mandatory 
spending, again, a cap on the growth. Under this particular amendment, 
mandatory spending would grow by either CPI, the consumer price index, 
or the program inflator, plus new enrollees. There are certain 
exemptions, certain programs that, if this were to be enforced by a

[[Page 14008]]

sequester, would have a 2 percent protection.
  But the truth is this is an amendment that goes to the heart of the 
question: Does this body believe in limited government? Is government 
ever too big? Is spending ever out of control? Should we ever do 
anything to protect the family budget from the Federal budget? Many of 
us believe that spending is indeed out of control.
  Mr. Chairman, since I have been on the face of the planet, the 
Federal budget has grown seven times faster, seven times faster, than 
the family budget as measured by median worker income. I believe that 
is an unsus-
tainable growth rate, and an unconscionable growth rate. If we look at 
it on a per capita basis, net interest outlays have increased 3.6 
percent faster than inflation each year since 1997. We see where the 
trend lines are headed. Ten years of spending history: total spending 
growth has averaged 5 percent each year since 1994, and the incline 
gets greater and greater and greater.
  Until we finally draw a line in the sand and tell the American people 
at some point we are going to quit taking money away from them, at some 
we are going to go in and begin to reform programs, we are going to 
prioritize programs, we are going to go in and begin to root out the 
waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication that permeates every 
corner, then American families will not be able to realize their 
dreams, their dream of a better tomorrow, their dream of better 
education for their children, their dream of better health care for 
their family. We must decide at some point that we are going to limit 
the growth of government, and this amendment would do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would set an arbitrary cap on some of the 
most important spending in the Federal budget, the spending that 
supports Medicare, on which millions depend for their health care; the 
spending that supports Medicaid. All kinds of spending falls under the 
rubric of category of direct spending or mandatory spending, including 
debt service, the interest we pay on our national debt. So we fix a 
level that corresponds to the existing level of expenditure, and then 
every year it increases.
  The gentleman does allow for the spending level to increase with the 
rate of inflation measured by the CPI. As everyone in this room knows, 
the cost of health care every year, for as long as I have known it, 
goes up substantially more than the consumer price index so that over 
time in holding Medicare to no more than the rate of growth of the CPI, 
while the rest of health care spending is going up at a substantially 
higher rate, this is going to erode away spending authority for 
Medicare. It is going to result in automatic cuts in Medicare and other 
programs, affected programs. If the cuts are not taken out of Medicare, 
they will have to come all the more out of other programs.
  Secondly, since debt service, the interest we pay on the national 
debt, is included, we could have this anomaly: we could have a huge tax 
cut that would result in a substantial deficit, requiring us to borrow 
large sums of money. Interest on the principal for the additional debt 
would go up, and that increment over and above the entitlement cap 
would have to be taken out of other spending programs like the Medicaid 
or children's health insurance or TRICARE for Life, trade adjustment 
assistance. All of these programs fall under that category and would be 
subject to automatic cuts if we had any anomalous action like that.
  So this is not a good idea. Certainly these are not programs we want 
to put in that kind of jeopardy. We would like to exercise some control 
over their growth, and we have from time to time in the past voted to 
reduce rates of expenditure to curb the growth in Medicare and Medicaid 
and these other programs. But to do it automatically, to do it 
mindlessly, to do it with a meat cleaver is not the way to go on these 
programs on which so many people depend.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to a few 
things the gentleman from South Carolina said.
  Number one, the cap is indexed to inflation at the CPI or another 
inflation adjuster, such as, in the case of Medicare, medical 
inflation, Medicare price. So how can he say that it is a cut if each 
of these programs grows by inflation plus new beneficiaries and the 
inflation within those kinds of programs?
  The problem we have, Mr. Chairman, is when we put most of the Federal 
Government off limits to budget discipline, it grows out of control. I 
hope that those who are in charge of discretionary spending in Congress 
also join with us in trying to control mandatory spending, because if 
we can control mandatory spending, we can get our hands around the big 
problem in our budget system in the Federal Government, and that is 
out-of-control spending. We do this in an honest way, we do this in a 
sincere way, and we do this in a way to protect those. That is why 
earned entitlements are off limits, like Social Security and Medicare 
benefits. We do this in a way that we protect beneficiaries, we protect 
them from inflation, and we get our hands around the biggest part of 
our Federal budget, entitlements.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to the gentleman's statement, it is still my 
understanding that child care, direct student loans, farm price 
supports, TRICARE for Life, military health care benefits, and trade 
adjustment assistance, among other things, would be subject to these 
automatic cuts. If there was some sort of growth over and above the cap 
that he has imposed, all of these things would get whacked unless 
Congress somehow intervened and saved them from being cut by 
administering cuts elsewhere in the budget.
  It is not a good idea. It is not a workable idea. And I continue to 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I commend him for this amendment.
  If we are serious about getting spending under control, we simply 
have to address the mandatory side. It is as simple as that. In 1963 
mandatory spending was 25 percent of the Federal budget. Today it is 
over 60 percent; and it is on its way up in absolute terms, as a 
percentage term. It is growing faster than any reasonable measure. And 
to allow, as this amendment does, for it to grow at the sum of the rate 
of growth of the population and inflation, allows us to maintain the 
level of benefits. It just puts a break on the out-of-control spending.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  This amendment points out the difficulty in the one-way PAYGO. If we 
have a crunch, we can only deal with it by cutting spending. We cannot 
deal with it any other kind of way. With the one-way PAYGO, if we want 
to deal with the problem through tax cuts, if we have health care we 
want to deliver, we can do it in tax cuts. Just give tax credits. There 
is no limit to what we can do. But if we have a crunch and the budget 
is tight, we have got to have this mindless across-the-board cut. If we 
do it through tax cuts, we could have tax cuts at the same time that we 
are cutting the spending.
  This is what happens when we have a two-way PAYGO, that is, if we are 
going to cut taxes, we have to cut spending. If we increase spending, 
we have got to raise taxes or any combination. The green was with 
PAYGO; the red is what happens when we have unlimited tax cuts with 
PAYGO. This just says we have got to cut mindlessly across the board 
with spending. If we

[[Page 14009]]

have a crunch and we have a new need, we cannot make it; we cannot meet 
it. If we want to meet it, the only way we can do it is through some 
tax plan where we are unlimited. But if we have a new program, if there 
is a housing need, if there is a health care need, something new we 
want to do, we cannot do it. This is why we need a two-way PAYGO and a 
more sensible way to deal with our budget, not mindless across-the-
board tax cuts.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. My colleagues on the 
Committee on Appropriations correctly point out that the engine driving 
the train here is entitlement spending, not discretionary spending, 
over which they have control. And they are right.
  Every American, I think, understands in their gut that entitlement 
spending is out of control. It is out of control because there are no 
restraints on it. I would like to point out, as my colleague from 
Pennsylvania did just a moment ago, in 1963, not that long ago, 25 
percent of our spending was entitlement spending. Today it is over 60 
percent of all our spending. We have to control that, and this is a 
rational basis to do it because it limits the growth to the growth in 
the population of the constituency plus inflation. That is the only way 
we can rationally limit spending. And it is not a meat cleaver.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the caps that are being proposed here could create 
shortfalls of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, triggering 
huge cuts. And let me tell the Members the programs that would be cut: 
veterans compensation, veterans pensions, food stamps, Medicaid, 
children's health insurance, childcare, direct student loans, farm 
price supports, TRICARE for Life, military benefits, and trade 
adjustment assistance among others.
  This is not a good plan. We do not need to put those in jeopardy of 
automatic cuts, and I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so 
also.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House 
Report 108-566.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1310 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1311. Continuing appropriations

       ``(a)(1) If any regular appropriation bill for a fiscal 
     year does not become law before the beginning of such fiscal 
     year or a joint resolution making continuing appropriations 
     is not in effect, there are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     such sums as may be necessary to continue any project or 
     activity for which funds were provided in the preceding 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) in the corresponding regular appropriation Act for 
     such preceding fiscal year; or
       ``(B) if the corresponding regular appropriation bill for 
     such preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a 
     joint resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate of 
     operations not in excess of the lower of--
       ``(A) the rate of operations provided for in the regular 
     appropriation Act providing for such project or activity for 
     the preceding fiscal year;
       ``(B) in the absence of such an Act, the rate of operations 
     provided for such project or activity pursuant to a joint 
     resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year;
       ``(C) the rate of operations provided for in the regular 
     appropriation bill as passed by the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate for the fiscal year in question, except that 
     the lower of these two versions shall be ignored for any 
     project or activity for which there is a budget request if no 
     funding is provided for that project or activity in either 
     version; or
       ``(D) the annualized rate of operations provided for in the 
     most recently enacted joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for part of that fiscal year or any funding 
     levels established under the provisions of this Act.
       ``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this 
     section for a project or activity shall be available for the 
     period beginning with the first day of a lapse in 
     appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date on which the applicable regular 
     appropriation bill for such fiscal year becomes law (whether 
     or not such law provides for such project or activity) or a 
     continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as 
     the case may be; or
       ``(B) the last day of such fiscal year.
       ``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms 
     and conditions imposed with respect to the appropriation made 
     or funds made available for the preceding fiscal year, or 
     authority granted for such project or activity under current 
     law.
       ``(c) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall cover all obligations or 
     expenditures incurred for such project or activity during the 
     portion of such fiscal year for which this section applies to 
     such project or activity.
       ``(d) Expenditures made for a project or activity for any 
     fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged to the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever a 
     regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making 
     continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal year 
     providing for such project or activity for such period 
     becomes law.
       ``(e) This section shall not apply to a project or activity 
     during a fiscal year if any other provision of law (other 
     than an authorization of appropriations)--
       ``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or 
     grants authority for such project or activity to continue for 
     such period; or
       ``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be 
     made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall 
     be granted for such project or activity to continue for such 
     period.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section, the term `regular 
     appropriation bill' means any annual appropriation bill 
     making appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or 
     granting authority, for any of the following categories of 
     projects and activities:
       ``(1) Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and related agencies programs.
       ``(2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and related agencies.
       ``(3) The Department of Defense.
       ``(4) The government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
     revenues of the District.
       ``(5) Energy and water development.
       ``(6) Foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs.
       ``(7) The Department of Homeland Security.
       ``(8) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
       ``(9) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and related agencies.
       ``(10) The Legislative Branch.
       ``(11) Military construction, family housing, and base 
     realignment and closure for the Department of Defense.
       ``(12) The Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and 
     independent agencies.
       ``(13) The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
     Urban Development, and sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis of chapter 13 of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 1310 the following new item:

``1311. Continuing appropriations.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 692, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page 14010]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. In the past when this 
House has not agreed with the other body on a budget, occasionally we 
have faced a government shutdown, a train wreck. The government has 
shut down 17 times since 1977, for a total of 109 days. These shutdowns 
should not happen. They are not good for the American people. Parks 
close. Applications for visas go unprocessed. Toxic waste clean-up is 
postponed.
  This amendment is very simple. It says if for whatever reason we 
cannot come to an agreement on the budget, we do not shut down the 
government. We go back to the last agreement on the table. We put in 
place a continuing resolution until such time as we can come to 
agreement so we do not hold the American people hostage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I will speak quickly because time is so limited. We are dealing with 
a constitutional issue in what we are talking about today. We have 
raised that issue many times.
  Section 9 of article I is very specific: ``No Money shall be drawn 
from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' 
But it goes further to say ``and a regular Statement and Account of the 
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from 
time to time.''
  If we were to agree to put into place an automatic continuing 
resolution, we would not follow the Constitution. We put the 
administration on auto pilot; and we let the Congress say that it is 
going to be a lot easier to avoid those difficult days and hours, those 
difficult decisions. Just go on automatic pilot with a CR. Ignore the 
Constitution.
  This is not a good amendment.

                              {time}  1800

  This is not a good plan. I supported the first amendment of the 
gentleman, but I cannot support this amendment. I think it flies in the 
face of the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment could have a perverse and 
unintended result, and that is it could lower, lessen the incentive for 
Congress to get its work done, knowing that if we could not come 
together and pass appropriation bills, all 13 of them, if we could not 
get them on the President's desk in time, why, it would be automatic. 
This continuing resolution would just automatically kick into effect.
  Anyone bent upon sort of disrupting the process and preventing an 
appropriations bill that he thought was maybe too much or maybe too 
little could manipulate this result, manipulate the situation if this 
rule were in place. So I do not think it helps the process at all.
  I think when we have to pass a continuing resolution, it is a bit 
embarrassing that we have to get up and say to the country and the 
public, as well as the President, we have not gotten our work done yet, 
so keep on spending money at the existing level. It gives us a strong 
incentive to go ahead and finally come to those final compromises that 
help us close the appropriations process.
  So this would probably complicate, prolong the process, and lead to 
situations where we did not even pass appropriation bills because there 
would be an automatic reversion to the prior year's spending level.
  It is not a good idea. It has been debated before, debated more 
thoroughly than it has been debated tonight, and there is a good reason 
it has never become law, it is not a workable or viable idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida 
for allowing me to bat 500 with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, I think, just a matter of responsible 
government. This is a very good amendment. It is responsible because 
the status quo is not. It is not responsible to have the threat of a 
government shutdown looming over this process. It is not responsible to 
have the American people wondering whether or not government services 
are going to be suspended, whether or not important functions are going 
to be disrupted. That is what is irresponsible.
  What is responsible is to say if we are unable to come to a 
resolution and pass a new appropriation bill, then we will, by an act 
of Congress, continue under the previously enacted appropriation bill.
  Contrary to my good friend and a colleague I respect, the gentleman 
from Florida, I do not see any constitutional problem with this 
whatsoever. It still is an exercise in Congressional authority in 
establishing the level of appropriations, but it happens to do so at 
the previous year's level. There is nothing in the Constitution that 
says we have to change the level of spending from one year to the next, 
so I tend to disagree with that.
  The other problem I have with the status quo and the reason that I 
like this amendment so much is that in the absence of an automatic 
continuing CR, let us face it, we know what happens. There is a big 
game of political chicken that happens.
  If we do not have an agreement, there is a big tension, a big 
question about which side is going to get the blame if there is a 
government shutdown. If one side thinks there is political gain to be 
had from precipitating a shutdown, it has an incentive to precipitate 
one, to cause it. That goes back to the issue of responsible 
government. That is not the way we ought to be running this place. So 
that is a second thing.
  Here is a third reason why I think this makes a lot of sense, and 
some of my colleagues do not like this reason. But the fact is 
sometimes we have operated for months on end with a continuing 
resolution, continuing spending at the previous year's level. And do 
you know what we discovered? No huge outcry. No great catastrophe. 
American society did not collapse, it was not the end of the world. We 
discovered that basically freezing spending at the previous year's 
level in many areas was no big deal.
  Now, if you are interested in more spending, that is a problem. But 
if you are interested in getting spending under control, this is a very 
good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the esteemed chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  More than anything else, I just want to make an observation: There 
has been a lot of coming to the floor and saying the budget process is 
broken. Part of the reason that this amendment is being offered is 
because it is the appropriations process that cannot get done on time.
  We have had so many years when appropriations do not get done on 
time, and, because of that, the threat hangs over for government 
shutdown. It is the reason why we are looking, grappling for a way to 
make sure that does not happen. But it is because of the appropriations 
process that with the budget process and other processes around here 
have some challenges.
  So do not come down and just talk about the budget. It is also the 
appropriations process that has challenges.

[[Page 14011]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to bring some 
illumination to this with numbers. This brinksmanship that this process 
brings us to has brought us a lot of extra spending. In fiscal year 
2002, the discretionary spending level in the budget resolution was 
$661 billion. We spent $734 billion.
  In FY 2003, the discretionary spending level was set out in the 
budget resolution at $750 billion. We ended up spending $849 billion.
  In FY 2004, the discretionary spending was $784 billion. We ended up 
spending $873 billion.
  This brinksmanship brings us to this overspending limit. This 
amendment stops that.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the reality is, it is a common-sense amendment. I was 
here in 1995 when the government shut down. My colleague from South 
Carolina said look, it is simply not needed. The current process works 
and this process helps us.
  Since 1977, in 27 years, we have shut this government down 17 
different times for a total of 109 days. What that means to the 
American people is that in 1995, 368 national parks closed, 7 million 
visitors were turned away, a loss of $14 million in tourism revenue, 
and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas went unprocessed every 
single day.
  It is not a yielding of our constitutional authority, it is indeed a 
rational way to deal with the process. We need to do our budget work, 
and if we cannot get it done in time, we need a process to keep the 
government open and running to serve the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest amount of respect for the gentleman 
from Florida, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, but it seems to me 
rarely has an amendment been endowed with such common sense as this 
one. Why do we shut down the government if we cannot get our business 
done? Do we understand the implications to the average American out 
there in the street?
  This is common sense. It needs to get done. On behalf of the people 
of America, I would urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Brady 
of Texas; amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chocola of Indiana; amendment 
No. 3 offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware; amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. 
Hensarling of Texas; and amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hensarling of 
Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by four 5-
minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 272, 
noes 140, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               AYES--272

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--140

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose

[[Page 14012]]


     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Davis, Tom
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Tauzin
     Velazquez


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1837

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. DeGETTE, 
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. EVANS, and Mr. CROWLEY changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. EMERSON, and Messrs. LEWIS of California, BOEHNER, PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania, GILCHREST, WICKER, RUPPERSBERGER, SNYDER and EHLERS 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 305 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chocola

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 290, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--126

     Akin
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Cannon
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Leach
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Weller
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--290

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Davis, Tom
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Rothman
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. RADANOVICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Castle

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 230, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--185

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert

[[Page 14013]]


     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Collins
     Conyers
     Davis, Tom
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Rothman
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1852

  Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 317, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                                AYES--96

     Akin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Manzullo
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney

[[Page 14014]]


     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Davis, Tom
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Issa
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1859

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 308 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 308 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 308 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111, 
noes 304, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--111

     Akin
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burr
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Dunn
     English
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thomas
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--304

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Davis, Tom
     Deutsch
     Evans
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Rothman
     Tauzin
     Waters


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1906

  Mr. NUNES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page 14015]]

LaTourette, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4663) to amend part C of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to establish 
discretionary spending limits and a pay-as-you-go requirement for 
mandatory spending, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________