[Senate Report 104-352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 567
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-352
_______________________________________________________________________


 
     CORPORATE SUBSIDY REVIEW, REFORM AND TERMINATION ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                              to accompany

                                S. 1376

  TO TERMINATE UNNECESSARY AND INEQUITABLE FEDERAL CORPORATE SUBSIDIES




                August 27, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 1996
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

   TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN GLENN, Ohio                     WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware
SAM NUNN, Georgia                    WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas                PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
    Albert L. McDermott, Staff 
             Director
Susanne T. Marshall, Professional 
               Staff
 Christine M. Schabacker, Counsel
  Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff 
             Director
  Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................1
III. Legislative History..............................................2
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................9
  V. Regulatory Impact Statement.....................................13
 VI. CBO Cost Estimate...............................................14
VII. Administrative Statement........................................15
VIII.Additional Views of Senator William V. Roth, Jr.................16

 IX. Minority Views of Senator Carl Levin............................17
  X. Changes to Existing Law.........................................20



                                                       Calendar No. 567
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-352
_______________________________________________________________________



      CORPORATE SUBSIDY REVIEW, REFORM AND TERMINATION ACT OF 1995

                                _______
                                

                August 27, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

 Filed under the authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 1996

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Stevens, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1376]

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of S. 1376, the Corporate Subsidy Review, 
Reform and Termination Act of 1995, is to create a Commission 
to fairly and independently review corporate subsidies and make 
recommendations to the President and the Congress for the 
retention, reform or termination of such subsidies.

                             II. Background

    The question of whether the Federal government should be 
providing subsidies to private, profit-making entities, and if 
so, what type of subsidies, has been an issue for many years. 
There have been recent efforts in the private sector to review 
corporate subsidies in a comprehensive manner. In May 1995, the 
Cato Institute issued a list of the corporate subsidies that it 
identified as ripe for termination by Congress. The Progressive 
Policy Institute also published a list of corporate subsidies 
it believes should be eliminated.
    Senator McCain offered an amendment on October 26, 1995, 
during the Senate's consideration of Budget Reconciliation to 
eliminate 12 corporate subsidies that had been identified by 
Cato and the Progressive Policy Institute as amongst the most 
egregious. A point of order was raised that the amendment was 
not germane. The Senate failed to waive the point of order by a 
vote of 25 yeas to 74 nays. This led to the introduction of S. 
1376.
    These actions led the Committee to take action on S. 1376. 
The creation of an independent, bi-partisan Commission is 
designed to ensure that all Federal subsidies will be 
considered on their merits. If subsidies are warranted, they 
will withstand this scrutiny. A Commission will provide for a 
comprehensive and fair review through a process free from 
political pressures.

                        III. Legislative History

    S. 1376, the Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform and 
Termination Act of 1995, was introduced on November 1, 1995 by 
Senator McCain (for himself and Senators Thompson, Kerry, 
Feingold, Kennedy, and Coats) and referred to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.

                                hearing

    On March 5, 1996, the Committee held a hearing on the bill. 
The following witnesses appeared to present testimony on S. 
1376: The Honorable John McCain, U.S. Senate, Arizona; the 
Honorable Fred Thompson, U.S. Senate, Tennessee; Stephen Moore, 
Executive Director, Cato Institute; Robert J. Shapiro, Founder 
and Vice President, Progressive Policy Institute; Martha 
Phillips, Executive Director, Concord Coalition Citizen's 
Council; and Ann McBride, President, Common Cause.
    Senator McCain testified that since the nation's annual 
deficit and accumulated debt have forced Congress to make 
changes to social welfare programs it is only fair to make the 
corporate sector share the burden of budget cuts. Senator 
McCain, in support of creating a Commission as necessary to the 
process of eliminating corporate subsidies, stated:

          An independent Commission with privileged and 
        expedited procedures to ensure congressional action 
        would depoliticize the process, guarantee that the pain 
        is shared, and might be the only realistic means of 
        achieving the meaningful reform that the public and our 
        dire fiscal circumstances demand.

Senator McCain, as part of the hearing discussion and when 
introducing S. 1376 emphasized that the goal of the Commission 
is not to increase revenues or create new taxes. Rather, the 
Commission is designed to conduct a review and formulate 
recommendations to reform programs or policies that result in 
inequitable advantages for special interest groups.
    Senator Thompson testified to the need for comprehensive 
legislation to address the issue of subsidies in a consistent 
manner. He noted that although progress has been made in some 
areas, the current process is piecemeal. Requiring the 
President and Congress to appoint Commissioners with expertise 
in the relevant areas, and forcing the President and Congress 
to review the Commission's recommendations would make it more 
difficult to ignore the work of this Commission. He stated,

          Enactment of this legislation will demonstrate that 
        Congress and the Executive branch are serious about 
        addressing and correcting a system which the American 
        public as a whole sees as benefitting the few with 
        access and influence, rather than serving the general 
        public good.

    Mr. Moore focused on the issue of spending. He recommended 
the Commission have a targeted amount of spending reduction and 
urged having the Commission concentrate on the spending side of 
the equation, rather than tax loopholes. In his opinion, 
corporate welfare was defined as ``a specific targeted benefit 
the government is giving to a specific company or specific 
industry.'' As an example, he did not view a cut in the capital 
gains tax rate as a corporate subsidy because it did not 
benefit only one industry or company. During questioning, Mr. 
Moore noted that, in his experience, there is general agreement 
between groups on the left, middle and right of the 
philosophical spectrum as to the most egregious examples of 
corporate welfare which warrant modification or termination.
    Mr. Shapiro likened Federal corporate subsidies to trade 
protections, which can artificially raise an industry's rate of 
return, thereby weakening market incentives for firms to become 
more efficient and productive. He also noted that subsidies 
create disadvantages for firms not receiving the subsidy and 
that the subsidies are largely found in sectors central to the 
commodity and manufacturing based economy of the past, while 
information-based businesses receive fewer subsidies. In 
addition, he estimated that of the $53 billion in spending and 
tax subsidies that the Progressive Policy Institute proposed 
for elimination, $16 billion in net benefits subsidies cost the 
lower four-fifths of income earners approximately $7 billion a 
year. He acknowledged that some subsidies serve an important 
public policy function; however, once a program created to 
serve a legitimate public purpose has served its purpose, the 
continuance of the subsidy makes it an artificial subsidy which 
should be eliminated.
    Martha Phillips of the Concord Coalition Citizens' Council, 
testified both on the conceptual aspects and the mechanics of 
S. 1376. The Concord Coalition, a grassroots educational 
organization supporting a balanced Federal budget, is chaired 
by former Senators Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and Paul 
Tsongas of Massachusetts. Ms. Phillips testified that the 
process established under S. 1376 should not be a one-time 
process, but that the Commission should issue consecutive sets 
of recommendations over a period of time, rather than all at 
once. She felt that having no dollar target for savings was a 
better approach than choosing an arbitrary figure which may not 
be reached, since critics might focus solely on the dollar 
savings rather than the progress in eliminating unnecessary 
subsidies. Ms. Phillips made a suggestion that recommendations 
from the agencies to Congress he submitted as one bill rather 
than a series of bills. The budget reconciliation process was 
highlighted as one example.
    Ann McBride of Common Cause also pointed out that ``to 
address corporate welfare is not simply a congressional 
problem'' but also one where the President must take a stand as 
well.
    At the hearing, Chairman Stevens raised a concern regarding 
how the Commission would address the varied and complex 
considerations that led to the enactment of a payment, benefit, 
service or tax advantage that might be considered a corporate 
subsidy. He noted that some Federal subsidies may have been 
established in response to other decisions made by Congress and 
approved by the President. For example, some subsidies are 
provided to offset requirements imposed on an industry by the 
Federal government. The U.S. shipping laws require that U.S. 
flag vessels carrying goods from the United States to foreign 
ports use an American built ship with an American crew. A 
subsidy is provided by the Federal government in this instance 
to offset the additional cost of the regulation. Without the 
subsidy, the public policy purpose for the regulation would not 
be achieved. To remove the subsidy without removing or reducing 
the regulatory burden could put the U.S. flag shipping industry 
out of the foreign trade business. Chairman Stevens held that 
for the Commission to conduct a complete review, it should be 
tasked with examining the original rationale for the subsidies 
and any related effects of reforms or termination of those 
subsidies, and should include those findings in its 
deliberations. A section was included in the Committee 
substitute amendment to address this issue.
    Senator Levin raised a number of concerns during the 
hearing, many of which have been addressed in the Committee 
substitute. His concerns included the need to clarify and 
narrow the Commission's mandate to focus on corporate entities; 
exclude from consideration such matters as education, worker 
safety, and unfair trade practices; increase bipartisan 
Congressional participation in the nomination process for 
individual Commissioners; and lengthen the specified deadlines 
for Commission recommendations, Presidential review and 
Congressional deliberation to provide time to examine the 
issues. Senator Levin also expressed strong reservations about 
the time limits on Senate debate and the lack of subject matter 
restrictions on Senate floor amendments, should a bill reducing 
corporate subsidies be brought before the full Senate.

                               discussion

    S. 1376 as amended creates a nine-member Commission to 
recommend which Federal corporate subsidies, including tax 
advantages, should be retained, reformed or terminated. Three 
of the members of the Commission are appointed by the President 
(one of which the President will appoint as Chairman); two are 
appointed by the Speaker of the House, one is appointed by the 
House Minority Leader, two are appointed by the Senate Majority 
Leader, and one is appointed by the Senate Minority Leader. The 
President and Members of Congress responsible for making the 
appointments shall consult with each other prior to making 
their appointments to ensure a board and fair representation of 
views on the Commission. The process for establishment of the 
Commission shall terminate if the President does not submit 
three names to the Senate after the January 1997 inauguration 
and prior to January 31, 1997.
    The head of each Federal agency is required to submit by 
April 1, 1997 or the date the budget documents are submitted to 
Congress in 1997, whichever is earlier, a list identifying all 
programs or tax laws that the head of the department or agency 
determines provide inequitable subsidies. The list must include 
a detailed description of the program or tax law in question, a 
statement detailing the extent to which the payment, benefit, 
service, or tax advantage meets the criteria of a ``inequitable 
Federal subsidy'' as identified in Section 4 of S. 1376, a 
statement summarizing the legislative history and purpose for 
the subsidy as well as the laws related to the subsidy, and a 
recommendation regarding the subsidy identified.
    Subsidies benefiting several groups of entities are 
explicitly excluded by Section 4(1)(A) and (B) from those 
Federal subsidies that may be reviewed by the Commission. The 
excluded subsidies are those that benefit non-profit 
organizations meeting the requirements of section 501(c)(3) and 
501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, state governments, local 
governments, and Indian Tribes.
    An inequitable Federal subsidy is defined as a payment, 
benefit, service or tax advantage that is provided by the 
Federal government to a corporation, partnership, joint 
venture, association, or business trust without a reasonable 
expectation that there would be a return or benefit to the 
public at least as large as the payment, benefit, service, or 
tax advantage. It is intended that in calculating the return 
and benefits to the public, the Commission consider both 
monetary and non-monetary benefits. In addition, the 
inequitable Federal subsidy must provide an unfair competitive 
advantage or financial windfall and may not include the 
following:
          (1) certain research and development awards.
          (2) items which primarily benefit the public health, 
        safety, the environment or education,
          (3) items necessary to comply with international 
        trade or treaty obligations,
          (4) items certified by the U.S. Trade Representative 
        as necessary, or
          (5) items for the procurement of property or services 
        by the Federal government.
    The definition of an ``inequitable Federal subsidy'' 
includes an exemption for certain research and development. It 
was agreed that research and development activities that met 
four criteria are exempt from the Commission's review. The 
criteria are enumerated in Section 4(4)(A) as follows:
    (i) ``research and development in the broad public interest 
awarded on the basis of a peer review or other open, 
competitive, merit-based procedure.'' This recognizes that some 
research and development activities may provide a large private 
return, but only a small return to the public; and these are 
not exempt from review by the Commission. Further, this is 
intended to ensure that research and development activities 
that received a direct funding grant, either within an agency's 
budgetary discretion or through a line-item appropriation, or 
in some other way were not competitively awarded, are subject 
to review by the Commission.
    (ii) ``is for a purpose consistent with the mission of the 
agency.'' This is to ensure that the research and development 
activities are appropriate for the agency in its role within 
the Federal government.
    (iii) ``supports competing technologies at levels 
appropriate to their potential, as determined by an appropriate 
priority setting process.'' This recognizes that some 
technologies may receive support to the detriment of 
technologies that compete with them because of influence by 
powerful allies, or for reasons that, while possibly once 
valid, are no longer valid. This provision attempts to ensure 
that the technology options selected by an agency went through 
a reasoned priority selection.
    (iv) ``research and development that the private sector 
cannot reasonably be expected to undertake without Federal 
support at a level or in a time frame consistent with the 
payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage's potential to 
provide broad economic or other public benefit.'' This 
provision recognizes that the private sector can and should 
conduct research and development; however, there are legitimate 
reasons for Federal subsidies to the private sector as an 
incentive to achieve certain public policy objectives. Federal 
funding may be necessary to offset financial risks and market 
failures in financing research and development, may be key in 
speeding up certain research and development, or may otherwise 
add to the activity by providing additional resources. In an 
era of intense global competition, such Federal support can 
play a crucial role in reaping the broad public rewards of 
research and development.
    The exclusion in Section 4(4)(B) for subsides primarily 
benefiting ``public health, safety, the environment and 
education'' is intended to be interpreted broadly to exclude, 
for example, health care subsidies, worker safety programs, 
work-study education and job training programs, and similar 
Federal activities.
    The Committee also took special note of the Federal 
government's role in the area of international trade. In 
establishing the Commission's review of Federal subsidies, it 
is not the Committee's intent to unduly disadvantage U.S. 
business interests as they compete in the international 
marketplace. It is recognized that foreign governments 
frequently subsidize business interests in their own countries. 
Eliminating a particular program or subsidy might make sense in 
a purely domestic context, but such action could place U.S. 
company at a severe disadvantage when competing with a foreign 
company which has the benefit of a subsidy from its government. 
A U.S. government subsidy may have been instituted in order to 
offset a similar subsidy to foreign competitors by foreign 
governments, with the intent of leveling the playing field for 
U.S. industry. To eliminate such a subsidy not only affects the 
direct U.S. business interests in global competition, but also 
reduces the leverage of the U.S. government in trade 
negotiations. Having matched a foreign government subsidy, the 
U.S. government may call for negotiations to mutually end the 
practice.
    Section 4(4)(C) exempts from the definition of 
``inequitable Federal subsidy'' any payment, benefit, service 
or tax advantage that ``is necessary to comply with 
international trade or treaty obligations.'' This recognizes 
that the U.S. government has entered into a variety of 
international trade agreements and international treaties that 
are not subject to review by the Commission. The circumstances 
and rationale leading to any such agreement are not the concern 
of the Commission. If the U.S. is a party to an international 
trade agreement or an international treaty, that obligation 
must be met.
    Section 4(4)(D) provides an exemption from the definition 
of ``inequitable federal subsidy'' for any payment, benefit, 
service, or tax advantage that ``is certified by the United 
States Trade Representative as specifically intended and as 
substantially needed to protect the foreign trade interests of 
the United States.'' As part of its agency plan under Section 
6(a)(3), the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is 
specifically required to survey all federally supported 
international trade programs for certification under 4(4)(D). 
This ensures that the USTR will report to the Commission not 
only on international trade programs under its direct 
jurisdiction but will play a role in reviewing trade-related 
programs throughout the Federal government.
    The USTR is responsible for directing all trade 
negotiations and formulating trade policy for the United 
States. Utilizing the expertise of that office to review all 
trade programs will ensure that U.S. trade interests are 
protected. A concern was expressed that in identifying 
subsidies in the international arena, a foreign country might 
be in a position to challenge U.S. trade policies within the 
World Trade Organization. The possibility was raised that 
Congress merely considering a subsidy for elimination could be 
cited by a foreign country as evidence that the ``payment, 
benefit, or tax advantage'' was not legitimate or justified. 
The USTR is the organization within the Executive Branch that 
will be sensitive to the potential for global trade challenges. 
The inclusion of USTR in reviewing and certifying a subsidy as 
``specifically intended and as substantially needed to protect 
the foreign trade interests of the United States'' adds needed 
flexibility to ensure that the important objective of the 
legislation does not have an unintended consequence of 
handicapping U.S. trade policy.
    The USTR will provide the Commission with a detailed 
statement of the reasons each program was or was not certified 
under the test of ``specifically intended and as substantially 
needed.'' This explanation will provide a better understanding 
of the rationale used by the USTR in reaching its determination 
on the merits of each program.
    The Commission is required to hold public hearings on the 
recommendations included in the lists provided by the head of 
each agency. All testimony presented before the Commission at a 
public hearing shall be given under oath. No later than 
November 30, 1997, the Commission shall submit a report to the 
President containing the Commission's findings and 
recommendations for termination, modification, or retention of 
each of the inequitable Federal subsidies. Once the report has 
been presented to the President, the Commission is required to 
provide to any Member of Congress, upon request, the 
information used by the Commission in making its 
recommendations.
    By December 31, 1997, the President must report to the 
Commission and to Congress on approval or disapproval of the 
Commission's recommendations. If the President approves all the 
recommendations, the President certifies such approval and 
submits the recommendations to the Congress. If the President 
disapproves of the recommendations, in whole or in part, the 
President must report to the Commission and the Congress the 
reasons for that disapproval. The Commission must then no later 
than February 1, 1998, submit a revised list of recommendations 
to the President. If the President fails to certify to Congress 
his approval of the entire package of recommendations by 
February 15, 1998, the process is terminated.
    If the President submits the Commission's recommendations 
to the Congress, expedited procedures are established for 
consideration in accordance with the rules of each House 
similar to those rules governing consideration of Budget 
Reconciliation.

                            committee action

    The Committee considered S. 1376 at a business meeting held 
July 25, 1996. Chairman Stevens (for himself and Senators 
McCain and Thompson) presented an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    The Stevens-McCain-Thompson substitute made several changes 
in the procedural process of the bill and incorporated language 
to address the Federal government's role in research and 
development, trade, public health and safety, environment and 
education programs. Of particular importance to Senators Glenn 
and Lieberman was the inclusion of language they proposed 
detailing the treatment of research and development and trade 
programs.
    Without objection, two technical corrections were made in 
the substitute amendment; and it was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Levin offered a series of four amendments to S. 
1376 as amended by the substitute.
    (1) In the definition of ``inequitable Federal subsidy'', 
he moved to strike the word ``entity'' and insert a 
``corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or 
business trust''. The change is intended to focus the 
Commission's review on established business interests, as 
opposed to individuals or sole proprietors. The term 
``association'' is intended to be interpreted broadly to 
include not only particular businesses such as a savings and 
loan association, but also trade associations and other 
collections of individual companies or industries that may 
receive inequitable Federal subsidies.
    (2) In the definition of ``inequitable Federal subsidy'', 
he moved to insert language stating that in determining whether 
a corporate subsidy is ``inequitable,'' the Commission may 
consider both quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits. This 
change would make it clear that the Commission should look 
beyond dollar values to consider intangible values.
    (3) To strengthen the restriction on Senate floor 
amendments to legislation modifying or terminating inequitable 
Federal subsidies under the bill's fast-track process, he moved 
to replace the ``relevancy'' requirement with a ``germaneness'' 
requirement. This stricter requirement is intended to ensure 
that Senate floor amendments are confined to the subject matter 
already addressed in the underlying legislation, in order to 
reduce the likelihood of extraneous amendments and to protect 
the rights of Senators to debate important proposals that 
failed to win Committee approval.
    Without objection, the first three Levin amendments were 
adopted en bloc by voice vote.
    (4) To eliminate time restrictions on floor debate, Senator 
Levin moved to strike the 30-hour limit for debate on the bill, 
the one-hour limit for debate on first-degree amendments, and 
the half-hour limit for debate on second degree amendments.
    Stating opposition to the amendment, Senator McCain 
expressed the concern that leaving the bill and amendments open 
to filibuster would effectively kill congressional action and 
reiterated the need for some type of fast-track process.
    Also stating opposition, Senator Thompson noted the well-
vetted procedures contained in the legislation for executive 
branch and congressional review.
    The Levin amendment to eliminate time restrictions was 
defeated on a roll call vote of 6 Yeas; Senators Cohen (by 
proxy), Glenn, Levin, Pryor (by proxy), Akaka, and Dorgan (by 
proxy), and 7 Nays; Senators Stevens, Thompson, Domenici (by 
proxy), Cochran (by proxy), McCain, Smith, and Lieberman.
    In response to concerns that subsidy reforms may be hurried 
through without comment on the floor, Chairman Stevens proposed 
an amendment to permit extension of debate on an amendment 
beyond the one hour limit. Based on Section 305(b)(2) of the 
Budget Act, this amendment permits extension of debate by the 
bill manager, the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader. The 
extension for debate on amendments occurs within the 30 hour 
overall limit on debate. The Committee agreed to this by voice 
vote.
    The Committee then voted to favorably report S. 1376, as 
amended, by a vote of 7 Yeas: Senators Stevens, Cohen (by 
proxy), Thompson, Cochran (by proxy), McCain, Smith, Glenn, 
Lieberman, and Akaka, to 1 Nay: Senators Levin, Roth (by 
proxy), Domenici (by proxy), and Pryor (by proxy). When proxies 
are considered, the Committee voted 9 to 4 in favor of the 
bill.

                    IV. Section-By-Section Analysis

Section 1. Title

    This section states that the short title of the bill, and 
updates the Act's year to 1996.

Section 2. Findings

    This Section lists Congressional findings. These state that 
some circumstances, including abuse, obsolescence, and anti-
competitiveness, can render a corporate subsidy undesirable or 
unnecessary. The findings declare that such subsidies are 
unfair to taxpayers and that Congress and the President have 
been incapable of systematically identifying and evaluating 
corporate subsidies, thus a Commission is essential to a 
comprehensive review of the problem.

Section 3. Purpose

    This section enunciates the purpose of the Act. The section 
was modified from S. 1376 as introduced to emphasize that 
fairness and deliberation are key characteristics of the 
procedure set up under the bill and that the corporate 
subsidies to be targeted are those that are unnecessary and 
inequitable.

Section 4. Definition

    This section defines the corporate subsidies that the 
Commission should review. This section only defines what is an 
``inequitable Federal subsidy'' because the intent of S. 1376 
is to invite recommendations for the retention, reform or 
termination of a subsidy; and forcing the characterization of a 
subsidy as ``unnecessary'' at the outset, could mistakenly 
suggest that termination is the preferred option under this 
Act.
    The definition of an ``inequitable Federal subsidy'' as a 
payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage provided by the 
Federal Government and meeting certain criteria is meant to 
provide guidance to the agencies as they prepare their lists 
and to the Commission as it reviews the lists provided to it by 
Federal agencies and departments and as it performs its duties 
under Section 5(b).
    Under Section 4(l), the Federal subsidies to be reviewed 
and subject to reform or termination are those provided to a 
``corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or 
business trust.'' Individuals were specifically excluded from 
this list.
    Section 4(l)(A) and (B) expressly excludes organizations 
that are taxed as nonprofits, state governments, local 
governments, and Indian Tribes.
    Section 4(4) excludes certain categories from the review of 
the Commission, as discussed earlier in this report.

Section 5. The Commission

    This section describes the duties, scope and composition of 
the Commission. Section 5(a) establishes the ``Corporate 
Subsidy Review, Reform and Termination Commission.'' Section 
5(b) outlines its duties. The Commission's first duty is to 
examine the Federal Government's programs and tax laws and 
through this process to identify the programs and laws that 
provide ``inequitable Federal subsidies'' as defined in Section 
4.
    Section 5(b) establishes the three duties of the 
Commission. The Commission must examine the programs and tax 
laws of the federal government and identify those that provide 
inequitable federal subsidies, as defined in Section 4 of this 
Act. The Commission must review these inequitable federal 
subsidies. Then, the Commission must submit a report with 
recommendations for the subsidies' retention, reform or 
termination that the Commission is required to submit to the 
President and Congress pursuant to section 6(b).
    Section 5(c) declares that this Act is not intended to 
result in the creation of new programs or taxes, but rather to 
provide a review of existing programs and tax laws in order 
that they may be fairly and equitably utilized. The Commission 
is not permitted to recommend the termination of federal 
agencies or departments.
    Section 5(d) states that the Commission to be one pursuant 
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
    Section 5(e) outlines how the Commission members and staff 
will be appointed. The Commission shall have nine members. The 
President shall appoint three; the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives shall appoint two; the Minority Leader of the 
House of Representatives shall appoint one; the Senate Majority 
Leader shall appoint two and the Senate Minority Leader shall 
appoint one. Prior to the appointment of the Commissioners, the 
President, the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the 
Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
are required to consult on the possible candidates for 
appointment. This is required in order to seek equitable 
representation of the various points of view needed for a fair 
examination, review and report the Commission is required to 
make under Section 5(b). Section 5(e) also provides that the 
Chairman is appointed by the President, and the subsection 
establishes the expertise that the appointees as a group are 
required to possess.
    Section 5(f) provides that each Member of the Commission is 
to serve until the termination of the Commission.
    Section 5(g) states that the Commission must conduct its 
first meeting no later than April 1, 1997. Each meeting must be 
open to the public. The Chairman may close the meeting when 
classified information, trade secrets or personnel matters are 
discussed. All proceedings, information and deliberations of 
the Commission must be available to the relevant Congressional 
Committees.
    Section 5(h) provides that a vacancy on the Commission is 
to be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
    Section 5(i) describes the rate of pay and the travel 
expenses of each Commissioner and the Chairman.
    Section 5(j) states that the Chairman is to appoint a 
Director and that the Director cannot have served on any of the 
entities or industries that are likely to be subject to the 
Commission's review. The Director must submit periodic reports 
on administrative and personnel matters to the Chairman of the 
Commission and the Committee on Government Affairs in the 
Senate and the Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight 
in the House of Representatives.
    Section 5(k) limits the number of personnel and analysts 
that may be detailed from federal agencies that deal directly 
and indirectly with the federal subsidies the Commission 
intends to review. This subsection also limits staff size to 
25, including detailees, unless the Commission first notifies 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs in the Senate and the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the House of 
Representatives. Also, the Comptroller General of the United 
States may provide assistance to the Commission after 
consultation with Congress.
    Section 5(l) permits the Commission to procure experts and 
consultants, and, to the extent funds are available, lease 
space and acquire personal property.
    Section 5(m) authorizes the appropriation of funds to the 
Commission as are necessary for the Commission to carry out its 
duties. This subsection also authorizes such funds as are 
necessary for the Comptroller General to carry out its duties 
outlined in the Act under section 5(k) and section 6(b).

Section 6. Procedure for making recommendations to terminate corporate 
        subsidies

    This section sets forth the actions required of Federal 
departments and agencies in preparing a list of inequitable 
Federal subsidies to be submitted to the Commission for review. 
It provides specific guidance for the contents of the list to 
include (1) a detailed description of each program or tax law 
in question; (2) a statement detailing the extent to which a 
payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage meets the 
definition of ``inequitable Federal subsidy''; (3) a statement 
summarizing the legislative history and purpose of such 
payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage and the laws or 
policies directly or indirectly giving rise to the need for the 
program or tax law; and (4) a recommendation to the Commission 
for its report to the President and the Congress.
    Section 6(a)(3) sets forth a special review requirement for 
the United States Trade Representative to review and certify 
all Federally supported international trade programs in all 
Federal agencies. The Trade Representative is required to 
provide a detailed statement of the reasons a program or 
benefit is or is not specifically intended and substantially 
needed to protect the foreign trade interests of the United 
States.
    Section 6(b) Review and Recommendations by the Commission 
establishes the process for review and reporting to the 
President and Congress.
    The Commission is required to conduct public hearings on 
the agency recommendations, and the Comptroller General must 
assist the Commission and also submit a report on the agency 
and department list to the Congress and the Commission. Changes 
that add, delete or modify a payment, benefit, service, tax 
advantage on the agency and department list must be reviewed at 
a public hearing and justified in the Commission report to the 
President. This section requires the Commission to report its 
findings in detail, discussing the effect of the 
recommendations on other policies and laws. The Commission must 
submit these recommendations to the President by November 30, 
1997, and to the Congress, upon request, any time after 
submission to the President.
    Section 6(c) covers the review of the Commission's 
recommendations by the President. No later than December 31, 
1997, the President must submit a report to the Commission 
containing the President's approval or disapproval of the 
recommendations. If the President approves all recommendations, 
he is to send certification of approval to Congress along with 
the Commission recommendations. If he disapproves the 
recommendations in whole or in part, he must submit his reasons 
to the Commission, which must submit a revised list to him by 
February 1, 1998. The President must approve and certify an 
entire package of recommendations by February 15, 1998 at the 
latest; otherwise the process established under the Act is 
terminated.

Section 7. Congressional consideration

    This section provides the procedures for congressional 
review of the Commission's recommendations if forwarded by the 
President.
    Section 7(a) requires that if the President submits 
recommendations, they must be accompanied by information 
including the rationale for the recommendations and the 
estimated fiscal, economic and budgetary impact of accepting 
them.
    Section 7(b) requires the President to submit the 
recommendations on the same day to the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. If either body is not in session, delivery is 
to the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House. The 
recommendations are to be printed in the Federal Register 
following submission.
    Section 7(c) establishes the procedure for introduction of 
the recommendations as legislation. Within 14 calendar days in 
session after the recommendations are received, the Senate 
Majority Leader, or his designee, and the House Speaker, or his 
designee, must introduce a bill or bills implementing the 
Commission's recommendations. The bill sponsors anticipate that 
the Majority Leader or the Speaker would designate the Minority 
Leader in his respective House of Congress if he is not 
interested in introducing the measure. More than one bill must 
be introduced if that is necessary to ensure that all 
recommendations will be reviewed by the authorizing committee 
responsible for their implementation.
    Section 7(d) provides for committee consideration of any 
legislation introduced. This section gives each respective 
authorizing committee 120 calendar days to review, modify and 
report on the bill under its jurisdiction. After this period, 
if no action has been taken by the authorizing committee to 
report the bill, the committee is discharged from further 
consideration.
    Section 7(e) provides for the Senate and Section 7(f) 
provides for the House procedures after the time period of the 
authorizing committees has concluded. Upon reporting or 
discharge, all bills must be referred to the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee or the House Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. These committees then have no 
more than 10 calendar days in session to consolidate all bills 
into one piece of legislation and to report that bill for 
consideration in their respective bodies.
    Section 7(e) details the procedures for Senate floor 
consideration. Debate in the Senate on the bill reported by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and all debatable motions and 
appeals, is limited to no more than 30 hours, with a one hour 
limit on amendments and a one half hour limit in second degree 
amendments. Other fast track restrictions limit floor action, 
including a requirement that all amendments be germane to the 
bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill 
further sets a five-hour limit on debate in the Senate on the 
conference report.
    Section 7(f) details the procedures for consideration in 
the full House of Representatives.
    Section 7(g) clarifies that the special procedures set 
forth in the legislation for the House of Representatives and 
the Senate are in compliance with the rules of each House, and 
are subject to the Constitutional power of either House to 
change its rules.

                     V. Regulatory Impact Statement

    Paragraph 11(b)(1) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill 
evaluate ``the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill.''
    The Creation of the Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform and 
Termination Commission would not have a significant regulatory 
impact on the public, nor would it constitute an undue 
regulatory burden on any government agency. The legislation is 
submitted to create a Commission to review a list of Federal 
subsidies put together by the Federal agencies which administer 
them, make recommendations for their retention, reform or 
termination, and to report to the President and Congress with 
those recommendations. The legislation also provides procedures 
for the disposition of these recommendations by the President 
and Congress.

                         VI. CBO Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 29, 1996.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed S. 1376, the Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform, and 
Termination Act of 1996, as ordered reported by the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs on July 25, 1996. Assuming 
appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO estimates that 
enacting S. 1376 would increase costs to the federal government 
by between $3 million and $3.5 million in fiscal year 1997, and 
by about $3 million in fiscal year 1998. Because the bill would 
not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    Enacting this legislation could lead to the reform or 
elimination of existing subsidies to businesses, and ultimately 
to significant savings to the federal government. However, 
because any change in existing subsidies would depend on future 
legislation, S. 1376 would have no direct budgetary impact 
aside from the administrative costs mentioned above.
    Bill Purpose.--S. 1376 would create a nine-member 
commission to review and make recommendations on existing 
payments, benefits, services, or tax advantages provided by the 
federal government to businesses. The bill would exclude from 
review certain subsidies, including those that benefit or 
support research and development, public health and safety, the 
environment, education, foreign trade, and certain competing 
technologies.
    The bill would require each agency to identify, in its 
budget justifications for fiscal year 1998, all programs or tax 
laws that the agency determines provide an inequitable subsidy. 
As part of that process, the bill would require the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative to review all foreign 
trade programs and to certify which programs are necessary to 
protect foreign trade interests. By November 30, 1997, the 
commission would be required to submit its recommendations for 
reform or termination to the President, who would then have 
until December 31 to accept or reject the commission's report. 
If the President rejects the report, the commission would have 
until February 1, 1998, to submit a revised list of 
recommendations. If the President does not accept the revised 
list within 15 days, the review and reform process would 
terminate. If either the first list or a revised list of 
recommendations is approved, the Congress would consider a bill 
or bills implementing those recommendations under procedures 
delineated in S. 1376. The commission would terminate on 
September 1, 1998.
    Commissioners would be paid for time spent performing 
commission business, as well as for any travel expenses. S. 
1376 would allow the commission to hire a staff director and up 
to 24 additional staffers. To exceed the limitation on the 
number of staffers, the bill would require the commission to 
first notify the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
Senate and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 
the House. In addition, the bill would allow the commission to 
enter into an agreement with the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to detail GAO employees to the commission.
    Federal Budgetary Impact.--CBO estimates that implementing 
S. 1376 would cost the federal government between $3 million 
and $3.5 million in fiscal year 1997 and about $3 million in 
fiscal year 1998, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts. The estimated total for 1997 includes about $2.3 
million in costs to the commission, about $0.3 million in costs 
to GAO, and between $0.5 million and $1 million in extra costs 
for other federal agencies. For 1998, the total includes about 
$2.4 million in costs to the commission, about $0.3 million in 
costs to GAO, and less than $0.5 million for other federal 
agencies. The bill would authorize the appropriation of such 
sums as may be necessary for the commission and GAO to carry 
out their duties under the bill.
    CBO assumes the commission would begin operation by March 
1997 and continue until September 1998. The estimate for the 
commission's costs assumes a staff of 25 through January 1998. 
At that time, the commission's responsibilities would largely 
cease. Thus, over the remaining seven months, CBO assumes the 
commission would require fewer individuals. For the entire 18-
month period of its operation, CBO estimates that the 
commission would cost about $4.7 million. The estimated costs 
are based on the bill's provisions for pay and travel and on 
costs of other federal commissions.
    The cost of detailing GAO employees to the commission is 
uncertain at this time because no agreement has been reached 
about the number and level of staff to be assigned to support 
the work of the commission. However, assuming that three to 
five senior employees would be assigned for this purpose, 
estimated costs--including pay and benefits--would range 
between $0.4 million and $0.8 million through August 1998. We 
used the midpoint of this range in the cost totals cited above.
    Mandates Statement.--S. 1376 contains no intergovernmental 
or private-sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4 and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John R. 
Righter and Mary Maginniss (for federal costs), and Matthew 
Eyles (for the private-sector impact).
            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.

                     VII. Administration Statement

    The Committee requested the views of the Administration by 
letter dated April 8, 1996, addressed to Alice M. Rivlin, 
Director, Office of Management and Budget. No response has been 
received.
         VIII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR.

    The Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform, and Termination Act 
of 1996 will create a commission to identify and make 
recommendations on matters that are within the jurisdiction of 
the Senate Committee on Finance and the House of 
Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means. This work will be 
redundant and unnecessary. It is exactly the type of work that 
the Senate Committee on Finance and the House of 
Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means has done in the 
past and will continue to do in the future.
    Currently, the Senate Committee on Finance and the House of 
Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means are charged with 
the responsibility of reviewing all ``corporate loopholes''. 
Through public hearings, research, and careful analysis, the 
committees are able to identify whether or not a provision is 
in fact a corporate loophole. In some instances, what may 
appear to be a corporate loophole on its face, is, in fact, not 
a corporate loophole. The Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform, and 
Termination Act of 1969 does not provide for the same level of 
detailed analysis.
    In the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, the Senate Finance 
Committee and the Ways and Means Committee proposed closing 
more than $56.2 billion of corporate loopholes over a 10-year 
period. Similarly, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 
1996, the committees proposed closing more than $25.4 billion 
of corporate loopholes over a 10-year period. These corporate 
loopholes included such items as: the disallowance of the 
interest deduction for corporate-owned life insurance policy 
loans, repeal of the tax breaks for companies doing business in 
Puerto Rico, elimination of the interest allocation exception 
for certain nonfinancial corporation, repeal of the bad debt 
reserve deduction for thrift institutions, and the repeal of 
the business exclusion for energy subsidies. The committees 
continue to search for other corporate loopholes and develop 
appropriate modifications to the Internal Revenue Code.
    Because the commission will be reviewing matters within the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Finance, the Senate 
Committee on Finance has requested sequential referral of this 
bill. To date, the committee has not received a response to its 
request.

                                                         Bill Roth.
                IX. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    I voted against S. 1376 in committee, not because I oppose 
the bill's purpose, but because the fast-track procedures used 
by the bill create a legislative freight train that could ride 
roughshod over important programs without the usual 
opportunities for debate.
    This bill seeks to create a legislative process similar to 
the one used to recommend military base closings. The bill 
would use this process to identify and eliminate 
``inequitable'' federal corporate subsidies. The goal is a 
laudable one. The problem is that what one Senator sees as 
inequitable corporate welfare, another sees as a critical, 
cost-effective program.
    The bill tries to address this problem by establishing a 
process that encourages thoughtful analysis of the problem. The 
process would begin with agency recommendations, include public 
hearings and GAO analyses, and require a preliminary list of 
Commission recommendations subject to Presidential review, 
before producing a final list of Commission recommendations 
that the President would have to accept or reject without 
change. If the President decided to forward the Commission 
recommendations to Congress, the bill would require prompt 
introduction of one or more bills implementing the 
recommendations, a 120-day limit on Committee review, 
consolidation of all Committee-reported bills into a single 
legislative vehicle, and prompt placement of that legislation 
on the calendar of the full Senate.
    These procedures are designed to force development of a 
comprehensive proposal to reduce corporate welfare and bring 
that proposal to the full Senate for consideration, and I have 
no quarrel with them up to the point described.
    What I do have a quarrel with is what happens when this 
legislative freight train hits the Senate floor. In addition to 
fast-track procedures to get the legislation onto the Senate 
calendar, S. 1376 would limit Senate consideration of that 
legislation, no matter how far-reaching, to a total of 30 
hours, including a 1-hour time limit on any amendment. It would 
also limit Senate consideration of any conference report to a 
total of 5 hours. It is these time limits on Senate debate that 
threaten adequate debate of important issues.
    To understand the nature of the threat, it helps to know 
that, when introduced, S. 1376 contained no subject matter 
limitations on the amendments that could be offered to the 
corporate subsidy bill during Senate floor debate. The bill's 
blanket 1-hour time limit applied to every amendment no matter 
what topic was addressed, from abortion, to gun control, the 
minimum wage, Medicare, you-name-it. When it was brought to the 
attention of the bill sponsors that this provision opened the 
door to loading down the bill with controversial amendments 
unrelated to reducing corporate subsidies, the committee 
substitute to S. 1376 added a relevancy requirement for Senate 
floor amendments. During markup, the Committee further 
restricted Senate floor amendments by accepting my amendment to 
replace the relevancy requirement with a germaneness 
requirement.
    But even this germaneness restriction is not enough. The 
boundaries of germaneness have recently become less certain. 
Germaneness would not, for example, necessarily bar Senate 
floor amendments addressing topics not included in the 
underlying bill. An amendment could possibly be ruled germane 
if, for example, it sought to reinstate a Commission 
recommendation eliminated in committee, or presented a proposal 
that had been offered during markup, but failed to win 
committee approval. Amendments to eliminate or reduce vital 
programs, which were rejected in committee, could possibly be 
deemed germane and presented on the Senate floor with a 1-hour 
time limit on debate. Senators supporting the attacked programs 
would not be protected with the rights of debate available 
under the normal rules of the Senate.
    These floor amendments could target a wide range of federal 
programs, benefits, services and tax provisions with provisions 
that might not have been recommended by the Commission or any 
committee. Potentially hundreds of federal activities could be 
eliminated or modified by floor amendments with an automatic 1-
hour limit on debate. The potential list includes, for example, 
disaster loans, low-cost electricity programs; tax advantages 
for empowerment zones; small business tax provisions and 
support programs; farm programs; tax incentives for historic 
structures; tax assistance to meet requirements of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act; veterans programs; child care 
tax provisions; transportation tax provisions and support 
programs; low income housing programs; Bureau of Reclamation 
irrigation programs; manufacturing support programs; road and 
timber programs in national forests; and so on.
    The list of possible targets is long and varied, and I 
could support reforms for many of them, but that's not the 
point. The point is that supporters of the targeted programs 
could have one hour or less to defend them. That's the bill's 
intent, and it strikes at the heart of the Senate's traditional 
deliberative process which values the rights of the minority as 
well as the rights of the majority.
    It's one thing to force the Senate to face a difficult 
issue by ensuring that a bill comes to the Senate floor. It's 
another to severely limit debate in the Senate when addressing 
far reaching legislation.
    S. 1376 seems to provide each floor amendment with an hour 
of debate, but we all know that if a substantial number of 
amendments were to be offered on the floor, the allotted time 
per amendment would quickly shrink, as happened this year with 
other fast-track bills. The bill's overall 30-hour limit means 
that we could easily end up voting on numerous, complex or far 
reaching amendments with little or no debate.
    Fast-track procedures for the consideration of bills are 
not the norm in the Senate and should be invoked rarely. These 
procedures were used to approve a list of military base 
closings, because the topic was a narrow one and there was no 
danger of Senators proposing fundamental changes to important 
programs. Fast-track procedures are also used on budget 
reconciliation bills, but only with the added protections of 
the Byrd Rule barring amendments on extraneous matters and the 
subject matter limitations which restricts floor amendments to 
mandatory spending programs. Even with these added protections, 
the result this year has been votes on complex amendments with 
virtually no discussion. Debate itself has been silenced by 
hours of roll call votes. We should be finding ways to limit 
the abuses of this process, not extend the process to another 
bill, especially one that could reach across such a wide 
spectrum of government programs.
    The corporate subsidies bill could conceivably propose 
hundreds of statutory changes, followed by a mountain of 
amendments proposing different changes. When combined with time 
limits on debate and a lack of adequate subject matter 
limitations on amendments, the result could be budget 
reconciliation magnified twice over.
    To prevent that result, its seems to me that one of two 
courses must be followed. Either the 30-hour, 1-hour and 5-hour 
time limits must be lifted, or additional subject matter 
restrictions on Senate floor amendments must be imposed.
    Sponsors of S. 1376 acknowledge some discomfort with the 
fast-track procedures in the bill, but content that these 
procedures are their only way to force Congress to trim 
inequitable corporate subsidies. But I believe a distinction 
could and should be made with respect to the types of fast-
track procedures being proposed. Those in the first half of the 
bill, which identify inequitable subsidies and bring a bill to 
the Senate floor, do no great harm to the Senate as an 
institution. But those that apply after a bill has been brought 
to the Senate floor, imposing severe time limits on debate, 
undermine adequate consideration of important issues.
    I hope to work with the bill sponsors, who have shown much 
comity in accepting other suggestions to improve their bill, to 
either lift the time limits or develop additional subject 
matter limitations for Senate floor amendments. Only with 
additional protections will we be able to avoid the legislative 
dangers, including severe restrictions on debate, that could 
result from this well-intended bill.

                                                        Carl Levin.
                       X. Changes to Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. 1376, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):
    There are no modifications of existing law. The full text 
of the bill is new language as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Corporate Subsidy Review, 
Reform, and Termination Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds that--
          (1) Federal subsidies, including tax advantages, 
        which may have been enacted with a valid purpose for 
        specific industries or industry segments can--
                  (A) fall subject to abuse, causing 
                unanticipated and unjustified windfalls to some 
                industries and industry segments; or
                  (B) become obsolete, anticompetitive, or no 
                longer in the public interest, making such 
                subsidies unnecessary or undesired;
          (2) it is unfair to force the United States taxpayer 
        to support unnecessary subsidies, including tax 
        advantages, that do not provide a substantial public 
        benefit or serve the public interest;
          (3) the Congress and the President have been unable 
        to evaluate methodically those Federal subsidies that 
        are unfair and unnecessary and require reform or 
        elimination; and
          (4) a Commission to advise the President and Congress 
        is essential to a comprehensive review of such unfair 
        corporate subsidies and to the reform or elimination of 
        such subsidies.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

  The purpose of this Act is to establish a fair and 
deliberative process that will result in the timely 
identification, review, and reform or elimination of 
unnecessary and inequitable subsidies, including tax 
advantages, provided by the Federal Government to entities or 
industries engaged in profitmaking enterprises.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

  For purposes of this Act, the term ``inequitable Federal 
subsidy'' means a payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage 
that--
          (1) is provided by the Federal Government to any 
        corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, 
        or business trust, not to include--
                  (A) a nonprofit organization described under 
                section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
                of 1986 that is exempt from taxation under 
                section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
                1986; or
                  (B) a State or local government or Indian 
                Tribe;
          (2) is provided without a reasonable expectation, 
        demonstrated with the use of reliable performance 
        criteria, that actions or activities undertaken or 
        performed in return for such payment, benefit, service, 
        or tax advantage would result in a return or benefit, 
        quantifiable or nonquantifiable, to the public at least 
        as great as the payment, benefit, service, or tax 
        advantage;
          (3) provides an unfair competitive advantage or 
        financial windfall; and
          (4) shall not include a payment, benefit, service, or 
        tax advantage that--
                  (A)(i) is awarded for the purposes of 
                research and development in the broad public 
                interest on the basis of a peer review or other 
                open, competitive, merit-based procedure;
                  (ii) is for a purpose consistent with the 
                mission of the agency;
                  (iii) supports competing technologies at 
                levels appropriate to their potential, as 
                determined by an appropriate priority setting 
                process; and
                  (iv) is for research and development that the 
                private sector cannot reasonably be expected to 
                undertake without Federal support at a level or 
                in a time frame consistent with the payment, 
                benefit, service, or tax advantage's potential 
                to provide broad economic or other public 
                benefit;
                  (B) primarily benefits public health, safety, 
                the environment, or education;
                  (C) is necessary to comply with international 
                trade or treaty obligations;
                  (D) is certified by the United States Trade 
                Representative as specifically intended and as 
                substantially needed to protect the foreign 
                trade interests of the United States; or
                  (E) is for the purpose of procurement of 
                property or services by the United States 
                Government.

SEC. 5. THE COMMISSION.

  (a) Establishment.--There is established an independent 
commission to be known as the ``Corporate Subsidy Review, 
Reform, and Termination Commission'' (hereafter in this Act, 
referred to as the ``Commission'').
  (b) Duties.--The Commission shall--
          (1) examine the programs and tax laws of the Federal 
        Government and identify programs and tax laws that 
        provide inequitable Federal subsidies;
          (2) review inequitable Federal subsidies; and
          (3) submit the report required under section 6(b) to 
        the President and the Congress.
  (c) Limitations.--
          (1) Creation of new programs or taxes.--This Act is 
        not intended to result in the creation of new programs 
        or taxes, and the Commission established in this 
        section shall limit its activities to reviewing 
        existing programs or tax laws with the goal of ensuring 
        fairness and equity in the operation and application 
        thereof.
          (2) Elimination of agencies and departments.--The 
        Commission shall limit its recommendations to the 
        termination or reform of payments, benefits, services, 
        or tax advantages, rather than the termination of 
        Federal agencies or departments.
  (d) Advisory Committee.--The Commission shall be considered 
an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
  (e) Appointment.--
          (1) Members.--The Commissioners shall be appointed 
        for the life of the Commission and shall be composed of 
        9 members of whom--
                  (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President of 
                the United States;
                  (B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of 
                the House of Representatives;
                  (C) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority 
                Leader of the House of Representatives;
                  (D) 2 shall be appointed by the Majority 
                Leader of the Senate; and
                  (E) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority 
                Leader of the Senate.
          (2) Consultation required.--The President, the 
        Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority 
        Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority 
        Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the 
        Senate shall consult among themselves prior to the 
        appointment of the members of the Commission in order 
        to achieve, to the maximum extent possible, fair and 
        equitable representation of various points of view with 
        respect to the matters to be studied by the Commission 
        under subsection (b).
          (3) Nominations.--After the date of the Presidential 
        inauguration in January 1997 and before January 31, 
        1997, the President shall submit to the Senate the 
        names of 3 individuals for appointment to the 
        Commission.
          (4) Failure to appoint.--If the President does not 
        submit to Congress the names of 3 individuals for 
        appointment to the Commission on or before the date 
        specified in paragraph (3), the process established 
        under this Act shall be terminated.
          (5) Chairman.--At the time the President nominates 
        individuals for appointment to the Commission the 
        President shall designate 1 such individual who shall 
        serve as Chairman of the Commission.
          (6) Background.--The members shall represent a broad 
        array of expertise covering, to the extent practical, 
        all subject matter, programs, and tax laws the 
        Commission is likely to review.
  (f) Terms.--Each member of the Commission including the 
Chairman shall serve until the termination of the Commission.
  (g) Meetings.--
          (1) Initial meeting.--No later than April 1, 1997, 
        the Commission shall conduct its first meeting.
          (2) Open meetings.--Each meeting of the Commission 
        shall be open to the public. In cases where classified 
        information, trade secrets, or personnel matters are 
        discussed, the Chairman may close the meeting. All 
        proceedings, information, and deliberations of the 
        Commission shall be available, upon request, to the 
        Chairman and Ranking Member of the relevant committees 
        of Congress.
  (h) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled 
in the same manner as the original appointment, but the 
individual appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve only for 
the unexpired portion of the term for which the individual's 
predecessor was appointed.
  (i) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
          (1) Pay.--Notwithstanding section 7 of the Federal 
        Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), each 
        Commissioner, other than the Chairman, shall be paid at 
        a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the minimum 
        annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive 
        Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States 
        Code, for each day (including travel time) during which 
        the member is engaged in the actual performance of 
        duties vested in the Commission.
          (2) Chairman.--Notwithstanding section 7 of the 
        Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the 
        Chairman shall be paid for each day referred to in 
        paragraph (1) at a rate equal to the daily payment of 
        the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for level 
        III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of 
        title 5, United States Code.
          (3) Travel expenses.--Members shall receive travel 
        expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
        accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, 
        United States Code.
  (j) Director of Staff.--
          (1) Qualifications.--The Chairman shall appoint a 
        Director who has not served in any of the entities or 
        industries that the Commission intends to review during 
        the 12 months preceding the date of such appointment.
          (2) Pay.--Notwithstanding section 7 of the Federal 
        Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Director 
        shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable for 
        level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 
        of title 5, United States Code.
          (3) Reports.--On administrative and personnel 
        matters, the Director shall submit periodic reports to 
        the Chairman of the Commission and the Chairman and 
        Ranking Member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
        of the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform 
        and Oversight of the House of the Representatives.
  (k) Staff.--
          (1) Additional personnel.--Subject to paragraphs (2) 
        and (4), the Director, with the approval of the 
        Commission, may appoint and fix the pay of additional 
        personnel.
          (2) Appointments.--The Director may make such 
        appointments without regard to the provisions of title 
        5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
        competitive service, and any personnel so appointed may 
        be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
        and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating 
        to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
          (3) Detailees.--Upon the request of the Director, the 
        head of any Federal department or agency may detail any 
        of the personnel of that department or agency to the 
        Commission to assist the Commission in accordance with 
        an agreement entered into with the Commission.
          (4) Restrictions on personnel and detailees.--The 
        following restrictions shall apply to personnel and 
        detailees of the Commission:
                  (A) Personnel.--No more than one-third of the 
                personnel detailed to the Commission may be on 
                detail from Federal agencies that deal directly 
                or indirectly with the Federal subsidies the 
                Commission intends to review.
                  (B) Analysts.--No more than one-fifth of the 
                professional analysts of the Commission may be 
                persons detailed from a Federal agency that 
                deals directly or indirectly with the Federal 
                subsidies the Commission intends to review.
                  (C) Lead analyst.--No person detailed from a 
                Federal agency to the Commission may be 
                assigned as the lead professional analyst with 
                respect to an entity or industry the Commission 
                intends to review if the person has been 
                involved in regulatory or policy-making 
                decisions affecting any such entity or industry 
                in the 12 months preceding such assignment.
                  (D) Detailee.--A person may not be detailed 
                from a Federal agency to the Commission if, 
                within 12 months before the detail is to begin, 
                that person participated personally and 
                substantially in any matter within that 
                particular agency concerning the preparation of 
                recommendations under this Act.
                  (E) Federal officer or employee.--No member 
                of a Federal agency, and no officer or employee 
                of a Federal agency, may--
                          (i) prepare any report concerning the 
                        effectiveness, fitness, or efficiency 
                        of the performance on the staff of the 
                        Commission of any person detailed from 
                        a Federal agency to that staff;
                          (ii) review the preparation of such 
                        report; or
                          (iii) approve or disapprove such a 
                        report.
                  (F) Limitation on staff size.--(i) Subject to 
                clause (ii), there may not be more than 25 
                persons (including any detailees) on the staff 
                at any time.
                  (ii) The Commission may increase personnel in 
                excess of the limitation under clause (i), 15 
                days after submitting notification of such 
                increase to the Committee on Governmental 
                Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
                Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
                Representatives.
                  (G) Limitation on federal officer.--No member 
                of a Federal agency and no employee of a 
                Federal agency may serve as a Commissioner or 
                as a paid member of the staff.
          (5) Assistance.--
                  (A) In general.--The Comptroller General of 
                the United States may provide assistance, 
                including the detailing of employees, to the 
                Commission in accordance with an agreement 
                entered into with the Commission.
                  (B) Consultation.--The Commission and the 
                Comptroller General of the United States shall 
                consult with the Committee on Governmental 
                Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
                Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
                Representatives on the agreement referred to 
                under subparagraph (A) before entering into 
                such agreement.
  (l) Other Authority.--
          (1) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may 
        procure by contract, to the extent funds are available, 
        the temporary or intermittent services of experts or 
        consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
          (2) Leasing.--The Commission may lease space and 
        acquire personal property to the extent that funds are 
        available.
  (m) Funding.--
          (1) Commission.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Commission such funds as are 
        necessary to carry out its duties under this Act.
          (2) Comptroller general.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Comptroller General of the United 
        States such funds as are necessary to carry out its 
        duties under subsection (k)(5) and section 6(b)(5).
  (n) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on September 
1, 1998.

SEC. 6. PROCEDURE FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO TERMINATE CORPORATE 
                    SUBSIDIES.

  (a) Agency Plan.--
          (1) In general.--No later than April 1, 1997, or the 
        date budget documents are submitted to Congress in 
        1997, whichever is earlier, in support of the budget of 
        each Federal department or agency, the head of each 
        department or agency shall include in such documents a 
        list identifying all programs or tax laws that the head 
        of the department or agency determines provide 
        inequitable Federal subsidies.
          (2) Contents.--Such a list shall include--
                  (A) a detailed description of each program or 
                tax law in question;
                  (B) a statement detailing the extent to which 
                a payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage 
                meets the provisions of section 4;
                  (C) a statement summarizing the legislative 
                history and purpose of such payment, benefit, 
                service, or tax advantage, and the laws or 
                policies directly or indirectly giving rise to 
                the need for such programs or tax laws; and
                  (D) a recommendation to the Commission 
                regarding actions to be taken under section 
                5(b)(3).
          (3) International trade programs.--As part of its 
        agency plan submitted pursuant to this subsection, the 
        United States Trade Representative shall survey all 
        federally supported international trade programs in all 
        Federal agencies and shall certify to the Commission 
        which of those programs meet the requirements of 
        section 4(4)(D). The Trade Representative shall provide 
        the Commission a detailed statement of the reasons each 
        program was or was not so certified as part of its 
        agency plan.
  (b) Review and Recommendations by the Commission.--
          (1) Review and hearings.--At any time after the 
        submission of the budget documents to Congress, the 
        Commission shall conduct public hearings on the 
        recommendations included in the lists required under 
        subsection (a). All testimony before the Commission at 
        a public hearing conducted under this paragraph shall 
        be presented under oath.
          (2) Report of commission.--
                  (A) Report to president.--No later than 
                November 30, 1997, the Commission shall submit 
                a report to the President containing the 
                Commission's findings and recommendations for 
                termination, modification, or retention of each 
                of the inequitable Federal subsidies reviewed 
                by the Commission. Such findings and 
                recommendations shall specify--
                          (i) all actions, circumstances, and 
                        considerations relating to or bearing 
                        upon the recommendations; and
                          (ii) to the maximum extent 
                        practicable, the estimated effect of 
                        the recommendations upon the policies, 
                        laws and programs directly or 
                        indirectly affected by the 
                        recommendations.
                  (B) Changes in recommendations.--Subject to 
                the deadline in subparagraph (A), in making its 
                recommendations, the Commission may make 
                changes in any of the recommendations made by a 
                department or agency if the Commission 
                determines that such department or agency 
                deviated substantially from the provisions of 
                section 4.
                  (C) Changes.--In the case of a change in the 
                recommendations made by a department or agency, 
                the Commission may make the change only if the 
                Commission--
                          (i) makes the determination required 
                        under subparagraph (B); and
                          (ii) conducts a public hearing on the 
                        Commission's proposed changes.
                  (D) Application.--Subparagraph (C) shall 
                apply to a change by the Commission in a 
                department or agency recommendation that 
                would--
                          (i) add or delete a payment, benefit, 
                        service, or tax advantage to the list 
                        recommended for termination;
                          (ii) add or delete a payment, 
                        benefit, service, or tax advantage to 
                        the list recommended for modification; 
                        or
                          (iii) increase or decrease the extent 
                        of a recommendation to modify a 
                        payment, benefit, service, or tax 
                        advantage included in a department's or 
                        agency's recommendation.
          (3) Justification.--The Commission shall explain and 
        justify in the report submitted to the President under 
        paragraph (2) any recommendation made by the Commission 
        that is different from a recommendation made by an 
        agency under subsection (a).
          (4) Report to congress.--After November 30, 1997, or 
        after the date the Commission submits recommendations 
        to the President, the Commission shall, upon request, 
        promptly provide to any Member of Congress the 
        information used by the Commission in making its 
        recommendations.
          (5) Comptroller general.--The Comptroller General of 
        the United States shall--
                  (A) assist the Commission, to the extent 
                requested, in the Commission's review and 
                analysis of the list, statements, and 
                recommendations made by departments and 
                agencies under subsection (a); and
                  (B) no later than 60 days after April 1, 
                1997, or the public release of the President's 
                budget documents in 1997, whichever is earlier, 
                submit to the Congress and to the Commission a 
                report containing a detailed analysis of the 
                list, statements, and recommendations of each 
                department or agency.
  (c) Review by the President.--
          (1) In general.--No later than December 31, 1997, the 
        President shall submit a report to the Commission and 
        to the Congress containing the President's approval or 
        disapproval of the Commission's recommendations 
        submitted under subsection (b).
          (2) Approval.--If the President approves all the 
        recommendations of the Commission, the President shall 
        submit a copy of such recommendations to the Congress, 
        together with a certification of such approval.
          (3) Disapproval.--If the President disapproves the 
        recommendations of the Commission in whole or in part, 
        the President shall submit to the Commission and the 
        Congress the reasons for that disapproval. The 
        Commission shall then submit to the President, no later 
        than February 1, 1998, a revised list of 
        recommendations.
          (4) Revision.--If the President approves all of the 
        revised recommendations of the Commission submitted to 
        the President under paragraph (3), the President shall 
        submit a copy of such revised recommendations to the 
        Congress, together with a certification of such 
        approval.
          (5) Approval of entire package.--The President may 
        only submit an approval certificate that pertains to 
        the entire package of recommendations submitted by the 
        Commission under subsection (b)(2) or paragraph (3) of 
        this subsection.
          (6) Failure to submit.--If the President does not 
        submit to the Congress an approval and certification 
        described in paragraph (2) or (4) by February 15, 1998, 
        the process established under this Act shall be 
        terminated.

 SEC. 7. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.

  (a) Submission of Recommendations of the President.--If the 
President submits the Commission recommendations to the 
Congress under section 6(c) (2) or (4), such recommendations 
shall be accompanied by information specifying--
          (1) the reasons and justifications for the 
        recommendations;
          (2) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
        fiscal, economic, and budgetary impact of accepting the 
        recommendations;
          (3) the amount of the projected savings resulting 
        from each recommendation;
          (4) all actions, circumstances, and considerations 
        relating to or bearing upon the recommendations and to 
        the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of 
        the recommendations upon the policies, laws and 
        programs directly or indirectly affected by the 
        recommendations; and
          (5) the specific changes in Federal statute necessary 
        to implement the recommendations.
  (b) Submission of Recommendations to the Senate and House of 
Representatives.--
          (1) Submission to congress.--The recommendations 
        submitted by the President to the Congress under 
        subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Senate and the 
        House of Representatives on the same day, and shall be 
        delivered to the Secretary of the Senate if the Senate 
        is not in session, and to the Clerk of the House of the 
        Representatives if the House is not in session.
          (2) Federal register.--Any recommendations and 
        accompanying information submitted under subsection (a) 
        shall be printed in the first issue of the Federal 
        Register after such submission.
  (c) Introduction.--
          (1) Date of introduction.--The Majority Leader of the 
        Senate or his designee, and the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives, or his designee, shall introduce a 
        bill (or bills as provided under paragraph (2)) that 
        implements the recommendations submitted by the 
        President under subsection (a), no later than the later 
        of 14 calendar days in session after the date on 
        which--
                  (A) the Senate or the House of 
                Representatives received the recommendations 
                submitted by the President under subsection 
                (a), if the Senate or the House of 
                Representatives (as applicable) is in session 
                on the date of such submission; or
                  (B) the Senate or the House of 
                Representatives is first in session after such 
                recommendations are submitted, if the Senate or 
                the House of Representatives (as applicable) is 
                not in session on the date of such submission.
          (2) Multiple bills.--The Majority Leader of the 
        Senate, or his designee, or the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives, or his designee, shall introduce a 
        bill or separate bills ensuring that all such 
        recommendations will be implemented.
  (d) Committee Referral and Action.--
          (1) In general.--Any committee to which a bill or 
        bills introduced under subsection (c) is referred shall 
        report such bill no later than 120 calendar days after 
        the date of referral. Any such reported bill shall be 
        referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
        the Senate or the Committee on Government Reform and 
        Oversight of the House of Representatives, as 
        applicable.
          (2) Discharge.--If a committee does not report a bill 
        within the 120-day period as provided under paragraph 
        (1), such bill shall be discharged from the committee 
        and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
        of the Senate or the Committee on Government Reform and 
        Oversight of the House of Representatives, as 
        applicable.
          (3) Report to floor; consolidation.--
                  (A) In general.--No later than the first day 
                the Senate or the House of Representatives (as 
                applicable) is in session following 10 calendar 
                days in session after the end of the 120-day 
                period described under paragraphs (1) and (2), 
                the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
                Senate and the Committee on Government Reform 
                and Oversight of the House of Representatives, 
                as applicable, shall--
                          (i) consolidate all bills referred 
                        under paragraphs (1) and (2) into a 
                        single bill (without substantive 
                        amendment) and report such bill to the 
                        Senate or the House of Representatives; 
                        or
                          (ii) if only 1 bill is referred under 
                        paragraph (1) or (2), report such bill 
                        (without amendment) to the Senate or 
                        House of Representatives.
                  (B) Legislative calendar.--The bill reported 
                under subparagraph (A) shall be placed on the 
                legislative calendar of the appropriate House.
  (e) Procedure in Senate After Report of Committee; Debate; 
Amendments.--
          (1) Debate on bill.--Debate in the Senate on a bill 
        reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs under 
        subsection (d)(3), and all amendments thereto and 
        debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, 
        shall be limited to not more than 30 hours. The time 
        shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, 
        the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their 
        designees.
          (2) Debate on amendments.--Debate in the Senate on 
        any amendment to the bill shall be limited to 1 hour, 
        to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
        mover and the manager of the bill, and debate on any 
        amendment to an amendment, debatable motion, or appeal 
        shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided 
        between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager 
        of the bill, except that in the event the manager of 
        the bill is in favor of any such amendment, motion or 
        appeal, the time in opposition thereto shall be 
        controlled by the Minority Leader or his designee. The 
        manager of the bill, the Majority Leader, or the 
        Minority Leader may, from the time under their control 
        on the passage of the bill, allot additional time to 
        any Senator during the consideration of any amendment 
        to the bill.
          (3) Limit of debate.--(A) A motion to further limit 
        debate is not debatable. A motion to recommit is not in 
        order.
          (B) No amendment not germane to the bill reported by 
        the Committee on Governmental Affairs under subsection 
        (d)(3) shall be in order.
          (4) Conference reports.--
                  (A) Motion to proceed.--A motion to proceed 
                to the consideration of the conference report 
                on a bill subject to the procedures of this 
                section and reported to the Senate may be made 
                even though a previous motion to the same 
                effect has been disagreed to.
                  (B) Time limitation.--The consideration in 
                the Senate of the conference report on the bill 
                and any amendments in disagreement thereto, 
                including all debatable motions and appeals in 
                connection therewith, shall be limited to 5 
                hours, to be equally divided between, and 
                controlled by, the Majority Leader and Minority 
                Leader or their designees. Debate on any 
                debatable motion, appeal related to the 
                conference report, or any amendment to an 
                amendment in disagreement, shall be limited to 
                30 minutes, to be equally divided between, and 
                controlled by, the mover and the manager of the 
                conference report (or a message between 
                Houses).
  (f) Procedure in House of Representatives After Report of the 
Committee; Debate.--
          (1) Motion to consider.--When the Committee on 
        Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
        Representatives reports a bill under subsection (d)(3) 
        it is in order (at any time after the fifth day 
        (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) 
        following the day on which any committee report filed 
        on a bill referred under subsection (d)(1) to the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has been 
        available to Members of the House) to move to proceed 
        to the consideration of the bill reported to the House 
        of Representatives. The motion is highly privileged and 
        is not debatable. An amendment to the motion is not in 
        order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the 
        vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
          (2) Debate.--General debate on the bill in the House 
        of Representatives shall be limited to not more than 10 
        hours, which shall be divided equally between the 
        majority and minority parties. A motion further to 
        limit debate is not debatable. A motion to postpone 
        debate is not in order, and it is not in order to move 
        to reconsider the vote by which the bill is agreed to 
        or disagreed to.
          (3) Terms of consideration.--Consideration of the 
        bill by the House of Representatives shall be in the 
        Committee of the Whole, and the bill shall be 
        considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule in 
        accordance with the applicable provisions of rule XXIII 
        of the Rules of the House of Representatives. After the 
        committee rises and reports the bill back to the House, 
        the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
        the bill and any amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion.
          (4) Limit on debate.--Debate in the House of 
        Representatives on the conference report on a bill 
        subject to the procedures under this section and 
        reported to the House of Representatives shall be 
        limited to not more than 5 hours, which shall be 
        divided equally between the majority and minority 
        parties. A motion further to limit debate is not 
        debatable. A motion to recommit the conference report 
        is not in order, and it is not in order to move to 
        reconsider the vote by which the conference report is 
        agreed to or disagreed to. A motion to postpone is not 
        in order.
          (5) Appeals.--Appeals from decisions of the Chair 
        relating to the application of the Rules of the House 
        of Representatives to the procedure relating to the 
        bill shall be decided without debate.
  (g) Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.--This 
section is enacted by Congress--
          (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the 
        Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, 
        but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be 
        followed in that House in the case of a bill under this 
        section, and it supersedes other rules only to the 
        extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
          (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right 
        of either House to change the rules as far as relating 
        to the procedure of that House at any time, in the same 
        manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any 
        other rule of that House.
  Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to review, reform, 
and terminate unnecessary and inequitable Federal subsidies.''.

                                
