[House Report 104-182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-182
_______________________________________________________________________


 
      PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1977, THE INTERIOR 
                APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

                                _______


   July 11, 1995.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Ms. Pryce, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 185]
    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 185, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

       BRIEF SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides an open rule for the consideration 
of H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives the following provisions of the Budget Act 
against consideration of the bill: section 302(f) prohibiting 
the consideration of a measure containing new entitlement 
authority in excess of a committee's allocation; section 306, 
prohibiting the consideration of matters within the Budget 
Committee's jurisdiction in a measure not reported by that 
committee; and section 308(a), prohibiting the consideration of 
a bill containing new entitlement authority if the report does 
not include a cost estimate on such entitlement authority.
    The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting 
unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill, and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting 
reappropriation in an appropriations bill, against provisions 
in the bill. The rule also waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI, 
prohibiting non-emergency amendments to be offered to a bill 
containing an emergency designation under the Budget Act, 
against amendments offered to the bill.
    The rule provides that the bill be read by title rather 
than by paragraph for amendment, and that each title be 
considered as read. The rule permits the Chair to accord 
priority in recognition to a Member who has preprinted an 
amendment in the Congressional Record. The rule provides for 
the automatic adoption of the amendment printed in section 2 of 
the rule, and waives points of order against the amendment 
printed in section 3 of the rule if offered by Representative 
Schaefer of Colorado or Representative Tauzin of Louisiana. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
    Below is an explanation of the waivers provided by the rule 
in addition to the clause 2 and 6 waivers of rule XXI, 
protecting unauthorized and legislative provisions and 
reappropriations in the bill against points of order:
    1. Section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits, among 
other things, consideration of legislation containing new 
entitlement authority in excess of a committee's allocation, is 
waived because the bill contains what is technically considered 
an entitlement. On page 75 of the bill, under the paragraph 
entitled, ``National Capital Planning Commission; Salaries and 
Expenses,'' is a provision that requires that ``all appointed 
members will be compensated at a rate equivalent to the rate 
for Executive Schedule Level IV.'' Since this does not make the 
amount of salaries either discretionary or a ceiling, but 
rather mandates a specified amount to be paid for the salaries 
of appointed members, it is considered an entitlement 
provision. Under the self-executed amendment contained in 
section 2 of the rule, this mandatory salary provision is 
changed to a discretionary provision by changing the rate of 
pay to a ceiling.
    2. Section 308(a) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the 
consideration of measures containing new entitlement authority 
if the report does not contain a cost estimate of such 
entitlements, is waived because the report does not contain 
required cost estimates on the salaries for the appointed 
members of the National Capital Planning Commission described 
above. Again, this entitlement provision is addressed by the 
amendment contained in section 2 of the rule making the salary 
level a ceiling.
    3. Section 306 of the Budget Act, which prohibits the 
consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget 
Committee in a measure not reported by that committee, is 
waived because the bill contains a change in budget score-
keeping. At page 57 of the bill, under the paragraph entitled, 
``Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' is a provision that allows a 
portion ($100 million) of the proceeds from the sale of oil 
from the SPR to be included in the budget baseline required by 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act ``as an 
offset to discretionary budget authority and outlays for the 
purposes of section 251(a)(7) of that Act.'' That section of 
the Balanced Budget Act relates to CBO and OMB estimates of 
congressional action on discretionary spending bills for 
purposes of enforcing discretionary spending limits. The self-
executed amendment contained in section 2 of the rule strikes 
this directed score-keeping provision.
    4. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI, which prohibits the 
consideration of non-emergency amendments to an appropriations 
bill containing an emergency designation under section 
251(b)(2)(D) or section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act, is waived. H.R. 1977 contains at 
least two such emergency designations: sec. 101 (p. 39, of the 
bill) contains an emergency designation for funds used for the 
repair replacement of Interior Department buildings and 
equipment damaged destroyed in disasters and; and section 102 
(p. 41 of the bill) contains an emergency designation for funds 
to be used for certain agency actions relating to the 
prevention of or response to various specified natural 
disasters. Without this waiver of clause 2(e) against 
amendments, no amendments could be considered to the bill.
    Below is a copy of a letter received by the Rules Committee 
from the chairman of the Committee on the Budget raising 
concerns about the above Budget Act violations. The Rules 
Committee has addressed these concerns by the amendment in 
section 2 of the rule.

                          House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on the Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, July 11, 1995.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Solomon: I understand that the Committee on 
Rules is expected to correct, as part of a special rule, 
several Budget Act violations in H.R. 1977, the appropriations 
bill for the Department of the Interior and Related agencies. I 
commend the Rules and Appropriations Committees for correcting 
these problems rather than seeking Budget Act waivers. I also 
want to express my intention to report legislation that will 
address the concerns of the Appropriations Committee on the 
budgetary treatment of asset sales.
    As reported, the bill violates Section 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act which prohibits the consideration of 
legislation that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
the Budget. The bill changes the budgetary treatment of 
proceeds from the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve under the discretionary spending limits. The Budget 
Committee has primary jurisdiction over both budgetary 
terminology and the discretionary spending limits.
    My concern is that this language sets a precedent for 
allowing committees to amend the budget process on a bill-by-
bill basis. I am committed, however, to changing the treatment 
of asset sales as part of a comprehensive bill on the 
discretionary spending limits in the Fall. I understand that 
the Appropriations Committee will delete this provision as part 
of a self-executing rule.
    I might point out that in Section 206 of the Conference 
Report accompanying H. Con. Res. 67, the Budget Committee 
already changed the treatment of asset sales for the purpose of 
allocations, reconciliation, and points of order under the 
Budget Act.
    I want to assure you that deleting the provision on asset 
sales will not put the Appropriations Committee in the position 
of exceeding the discretionary spending limits. These limits, 
as currently adjusted by law, exceed the allocation of 
discretionary spending to the Appropriations Committee for 
Fiscal Year 1996 by a substantial margin.
    As reported, the bill also violates Section 308 of the 
Budget Act because it creates new entitlement authority but 
does not include a CBO cost estimate. The bill creates new 
entitlement authority by authorizing salaries for members of 
the National Capital Planning Commission at a specific GS 
level. I understand that the wording of this provision will be 
changed so that it can no longer be construed as providing new 
entitlement authority by stipulating that compensation shall be 
at a rate ``not to exceed'' the rate for Executive Schedule IV.
    I appreciate your continuing assistance in enforcing the 
budget resolution.
            Sincerely,
                                            John R. Kasich,
                                 Chairman, Committee on the Budget.