Congressional RecordUN

UME PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

H5579

Vol. 143 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1997 No. 105

House of RepresentativesThe House met at 10 a.m. and was

called to order by the Speaker pro tem-pore [Mr. LATOURETTE].

f

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be-fore the House the following commu-nication from the Speaker:

WASHINGTON, DC,July 23, 1997.

I hereby designate the Honorable STEVENC. LATOURETTE to act as Speaker pro tem-pore on this day.

NEWT GINGRICH,Speaker of the House of Representatives.

f

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Rev. James DavidFord, D.D., offered the following pray-er:

As we pray to You, O God, to revealthe high purposes of life, we also re-mind ourselves that You have given tous the responsibility to use our mindsand hearts and hands to accomplishthose high purposes. You have com-manded that we follow the road topeace, so may we use our minds to dis-cover those roads; You have told us tofeed the hungry, so may we use ourhands to till the soil and plant thecrops; You have told us to be compas-sionate to all people, so may our heartscompel us to help heal the broken andstrengthen our communities. We thankYou, O God, for giving us the heavenlyvision and we pray that we will realizethat vision in our daily lives. This isour earnest prayer. Amen.

f

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair has examined the Journal of thelast day’s proceedings and announcesto the House his approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will thegentleman from Colorado, Mr. BOBSCHAFFER, come forward and lead theHouse in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado ledthe Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

f

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms.McDevitt, one of its clerks, announcedthat the Senate had passed withamendments in which the concurrenceof the House is requested, a bill of theHouse of the following title:

H.R. 2016. An act making appropriationsfor military construction, family housing,and base realignment and closure for the De-partment of Defense for the fiscal year end-ing September 30, 1998, and for other pur-poses.

The message also announced that theSenate insists upon its amendments tothe bill (H.R. 2016) ‘‘An act making ap-propriations for military construction,family housing, and base realignmentand closure for the Department of De-fense for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 1998, and for other pur-poses’’, requests a conference with theHouse on the disagreeing votes of thetwo Houses thereon, and appoints Mr.BURNS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr.FAIRCLOTH, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. STEVENS,Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REID, Mr. INOUYE,and Mr. BYRD, to be the conferees onthe part of the Senate.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair will entertain fifteen 1-minutespeeches from each side.

PRESENTATION OF FREEDOMWORKS AWARD TO THE INDIAN-APOLIS LEGAL AID SOCIETY

(Mr. ARMEY asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am ex-cited today to present the FreedomWorks Award to the Indianapolis LegalAid Society for their fine work in pro-viding legal representation to the poorof central Indiana. I established theFreedom Works Award to celebratefreedom by recognizing individuals andgroups who take personal and privateinitiative instead of promoting reli-ance on the Government. Today I amhonoring the Indianapolis Legal AidSociety which is the largest organiza-tion in Indiana devoted solely to thenonideological, nonpartisan provisionof legal assistance to people who can-not afford to hire a lawyer.

Mr. Speaker, the Society employsfour full-time and three part-time law-yers who, with a small group of volun-teer lawyers, personally assisted morethan 7,000 clients in 1996. In fact, lastyear the Society received inquiriesfrom more than 15,000 people seekinglegal assistance in such matters asfamily law, custody disputes, and land-lord-tenant rights.

Despite operating on a limited budg-et and not receiving raises for 4 years,the Society’s committed staff contin-ues to assist the poor in central Indi-ana in a compassionate and efficientmanner, providing hope for citizenswho have nowhere else to turn. Thisgroup reminds us of the thousands oflawyers across the Nation who providefree legal assistance to low-incomeAmericans through their own generos-ity. In fact, pro bono attorneys con-tribute over five times the number ofhours worked annually by the staff at-torneys in the Legal Service Corp’snetwork, and Mr. Speaker, this fine

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH5580 July 23, 1997group has achieved this success with-out receiving a single penny of govern-ment funding. Instead they have reliedon the generosity of private groups andindividuals who are committed to theprinciple of equal justice under the lawfor all citizens.

Mr. Speaker, access to the legal sys-tem by all our citizens is a cornerstoneof American democracy. The Indianap-olis Legal Aid Society is setting an ex-ample for us by recognizing the needand taking private initiative to addressit effectively and efficiently. I am veryproud today to honor them for theirfine achievements.f

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORCLAUSE WILL MOVE OUR ECON-OMY IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, FederalGovernment policy has a major impactin the way that employers treat theirworkers. It is important that Federalpolicy encourage workers to take thehigh-skill, high-wage road. For thegood of our Nation, employers need toinvest in the training benefits andlong-term productivity of their work-ers.

But, Mr. Speaker, the independentcontractor provision would move oureconomy in the wrong direction. Itwould encourage employers to abandontheir commitment to their workers bymoving them off the payroll. It wouldstrip them of their health care and pen-sion benefits. Employers who abandontheir workers would obtain a competi-tive advantage over socially respon-sible companies. This is very unfair tothe companies that respect their work-ers and invest in their skills and bene-fits.

That is why business organizationssuch as the Information TechnologyAssociation of America oppose theindependent contractor clause. With its11,000 member companies the ITAAsays the independent contractor provi-sion will harm legitimate businessesand result in the growth of businesseswith no employee benefits.

Mr. Speaker, that is the wrong direc-tion for America. The independent con-tractor clause needs to be deleted fromthe final budget bill.f

LIBERALS ARE UNWILLING TOGIVE THE MIDDLE CLASS ABREAK

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the lib-erals are simply unwilling to give themiddle class a break. They are playingthe class warfare card again. Theyseem to do it all the time; it is happen-ing again. Thanks to the wonders ofsomething called the family economicincome, middle-class families are de-

fined as rich, and then of course thegovernment should have the right totake away half of what one earns be-cause the politicians should be allowedto spend that money instead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to letthe American people keep the moneyin their own pockets, decide how theywant to spend it, not the politicians uphere in Washington, and all of this is inthe interest of fairness, so to speak.But if the family economic income ar-gument is not working, then the lib-erals turn to their other rhetorical she-nanigans. They want to turn a tax cutinto a program, and get this:

They want to give a check to peoplewho are not paying any income taxes.

This tax cut is supposed to be a cutfor people who actually pay taxes. It issupposed to help particularly the mid-dle class.

The American people in this countryare overtaxed, particularly the middleclass. Let us give them a break, and letus do it now.f

REPUBLICAN SHIP OF STATESPINNING OUT OF CONTROL

(Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I readsome alarming news lately about a shipspinning wildly out of control. Powerwas mysteriously cut but nobody couldsay who pulled the plug. The ship’scommander was suffering from nervouspalpitations. Rumors spread that hecould not fulfill his duties or that hiswhole crew might have to abandonship.

People said, ‘‘They’ve been up theretoo long, it’s time to bring themdown.’’

Were these the reports of the Russianspaceship Mir floating high above? No,it was the Republican ‘‘ship of state’’right here on Capitol Hill spinning outof control, losing power, a nervous cap-tain at the helm. Like the cosmonautsin outer space, the Republicans are farremoved from people here on theground.

How else can we explain the GOP taxbill, a bill with tax cuts for thewealthiest but nothing, zero, for par-ents working full time to stay abovethe poverty level? There is only one ex-planation for tax cuts that are upsidedown. They must have been written inthe weightless atmosphere of outerspace.

In the last Congress, the Republicanshad a Contract With America. Todaythey have lost contact with Earth.f

REPUBLICAN TAXPAYER RELIEFACT FOSTERS THE AMERICANDREAM(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, everyparent wants to leave their children

better off than they were. But as ourGovernment makes it more and moredifficult for people to leave the productof their hard work to their loved ones,this American dream is becoming al-most impossible.

As hard-working men and womenreach retirement, they are forced tosell their farms or small businesses be-cause they cannot afford the death tax.Our Taxpayer Relief Act fosters theAmerican dream by lowering this taxand other tax burdens on the shouldersof working men and women.

Clearly the best thing we can do forfuture generations is to help strength-en our economy, and we can do this bygiving every homeowner, every inven-tor, every farmer and small business-man incentives to invest in America’sneighborhoods and workplaces.

The Republican Taxpayer Relief Actis good for American families, and Iurge my colleagues and the liberalDemocrats on the other side to stopthe distortions, stop the rhetoric, andstart supporting real tax relief for theAmerican people.f

TAX FAIRNESS FOR WORKINGAMERICANS

(Ms. VELÁZQUEZ asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, theDemocrats have made it clear thatthey want to offer tax relief to workingfamilies. The President has made itclear that he wants to offer tax reliefto working families. The Americanpeople have made it clear that theyknow the Republican tax plan favorsthe wealthy.

Now the chairman of the Committeeon Ways and Means tell us that he willnot offer a $500-per-child tax credit toall working families, but he wants hugetax breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans just donot get it. When they signed the Con-tract With America, they promised a$500-per-child tax credit to workingfamilies. Now they are breaking theirpromise to millions of working Ameri-cans. Police officers, nurses, teachers,firefighters, they pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the American peopleneed to know are the Republicansgoing to make good on the contractthey signed or is this just another caseof promises made, promises broken?f

REPUBLICAN AGENDA IS THEANSWER TO AMERICANS’YEARNINGS FOR FREEDOMFROM GOVERNMENT

(Mr. HEFLEY asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, if we lookacross the sweep of history, we will no-tice that the human struggle has beena continuous struggle for greater free-dom. From the Magna Carta to theConstitution of the United States, the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5581July 23, 1997struggle for greater freedom has beenan unending battle against govern-ments in power who fail to resist thetemptation to abuse their power. Peo-ple struggling against government tyr-anny is a theme that resonatesthroughout history and across theglobe. Political freedom, economicfreedom, and religious freedom; thefocus of the struggle changes, but thedirection of the goal and the inspira-tion for the cause have always re-mained the same.

The human soul desires freedom fromgovernment oppression, freedom tocontrol one’s destiny, and freedom toworship one’s God. The Republicanagenda is an answer to those yearningsfor more freedom, lower taxes, smallergovernment, and the right to expressour faith in the public square.

This is the direction to more freedomfor all Americans.f

ALL WORKING FAMILIES DESERVERELIEF FROM TAXES

(Mr. SNYDER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks and include extraneous mate-rial.)

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, yester-day President Clinton expressed hisfirm commitment to stand for childrenof all working families, not just theones covered by the Republican taxbill. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, to ignoremillions of taxpaying working families,including thousands of children in Ar-kansas. It is not class warfare to pointout that payroll taxes deducted every 2weeks out of checks are taxes, and allworking families deserve relief fromwhatever taxes they pay, payroll or in-come.f

CRACK THE CHAMPAGNE ANDCALL ROBIN LEACH

(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker,guess what? My colleagues have heardthis before, but if someone makes$54,000, they are now the rich. Theyjust do not know it yet. Or at leastthat is what the Clinton administra-tion has figured with their calculationson who should get a tax cut. With thestroke of a calculator they have cre-ated funny money. They have movedmillions of Americans from the middleclass to Beverly Hills, from MainStreet to Rodeo Drive, from theminivan to the limo.

This new wealth in America includesa lot of people. Who are they?

Some 1.7 million union members arerich; 8.1 million government workersare rolling in dough; 2.4 million teach-ers better crack the champagne andcall Robin Leach.

They are all rich according to thePresident and they just do not need atax cut.

We should get serious. We have nothad a tax cut in more than 16 years,and now we have a real chance to pro-vide relief to our families. It is time forthe left to stop twisting the truthabout tax relief.f

b 1015

BASIC FAIRNESS IN THE MINIMUMWAGE

(Mr. BONIOR asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, yesterdayI introduced a bill to raise the mini-mum wage to $7.25 an hour by the year2002. We raised the minimum wage ayear ago and a lot of Republicans weredead set against it. They predicted itwould ruin the economy. What did itdo? It boosted wages for 4 millionworking families, unemploymentdropped, inflation has been low, theeconomy has been moving, but despitethis good news, many of my Republicancolleagues will oppose another increasein the minimum wage.

I might say, these are the same folksthat want to give a tax break to thewealthiest individuals in this country,the same Republicans whose tax billgives nearly 60 percent of the taxbreaks to people making a quarter of amillion dollars a year or more, thesame Republicans whose tax bill in-cludes an all-out assault on the mini-mum wage with language about inde-pendent contractors that actually en-courages employers to pay some work-ers less than the minimum wage.

If a person works hard in this coun-try day in and day out, they do a goodjob, they should get a paycheck that isbig enough to support their family.They need a tax break that favorsthem and not the very wealthiest inthis country. We are not talking aboutbuying BMWs here, we are talkingabout being able to have people to af-ford to buy a used Chevy. That is basicfairness. That is what this minimumwage bill is about. That is what theDemocratic tax bill is about.f

HOW TO GET RICH QUICK

(Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Coloradoasked and was given permission to ad-dress the House for 1 minute and to re-vise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado.Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I sawthis entertainer, Ed McMahon, on tele-vision. He was talking about how manyof the viewers may be rich already andnot even know it. I thought how simi-lar that claim was to the ones we arehearing from Democrats today, thatthe American people, the average hard-working families earning between$20,000 a year and $75,000 a year, aresomehow rich and may not even knowit.

We do not have to watch the mail inorder to find out whether we are

wealthy. Under the Democrats’ manip-ulation of income, we can just call theTreasury Department now and find outwhether we are rich. In fact, it is thedirty little secret of the White Houseand the Democrat Party: Get richquick, call the U.S. Treasury now, findout how they have taken your $45,000income, and now they call you a mil-lionaire on the House floor and suggestthat you do not deserve a tax cut.

Call the number of the Treasury De-partment and find out about theirdirty little manipulation of your in-come; 202–622–0120, 202–622–0120, theTreasury operators are standing by.f

TWO CHOICES IN TAX CUT PLANS

(Ms. STABENOW asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday on behalf of the hardworkingpeople in middle Michigan who wantvery much to receive the benefits ofthe tax cuts that are being proposedhere and discussed in the House of Rep-resentatives. We have two choices: Wehave individuals who now lead theHouse, who were the ones that pro-posed in the 1980’s tax breaks for thewealthy, hoping that they would trick-le down to our middle-class familiesand each of us who have been workinghard every day; or tax breaks that godirectly into the pockets of hard-working middle-class people.

The tax cut that I am supporting,that was put forward by the Democratsand the President, is advocating mak-ing sure that if a person has a homeand they want to sell it, and that iswhere most of us put our savings, theyget a tax break. If they have children,they get a tax break. If they are tryingto send their children to college, theyget a tax break. If they have a smallbusiness and they have worked hardand put all their sweat equity intotheir business over the years, they geta tax break. If they have a family-owned farm, they get a tax break.

What we do not do is focus the taxbreaks on the top 2 percent. I urge weadopt this program.f

LOOK AT THE RECORD ON TAXCUT PROPOSALS

(Mr. ROGAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, those whoare following this debate on taxes mayhave a hard time trying to figure outwhich party is being candid on their re-spective tax-cutting claims. My sug-gestion is that they simply look at therecord. When we do, we see our friendson the Democrat side consistently op-posing tax cuts.

Their argument is that middle-classtax cuts are giving a tax break to thewealthy. But the record shows that theso-called wealthy they are talking

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH5582 July 23, 1997about are people earning about $50,000a year. On the other hand, when theytalk about giving a tax cut to workingfamilies, they really mean giving a taxcut to people who do not pay any Fed-eral income taxes.

The choice is simply this: We cansupport the Republican proposal thataffirms the right of working familieswho pay taxes to keep more of themoney they earn. Or, we can supportour friends on the Democrat side, whotell those same families they arewealthy, and want to give tax moneyto people who do not pay taxes.f

LONG-TERM EFFECTS OFREPUBLICAN TAX PROPOSALS

(Mr. KIND asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I, too, wantto rise today to express some concernthat I have about the tax cut. We haveheard a lot of discussion about who isgoing to benefit from the tax cut. Iwant to give a different perspective.That is the perspective of my son, Jon-athan, who is approaching his firstbirthday, and what this tax cut isgoing to mean to him.

The Treasury Department and eventhe Congressional Research Service,the independent investigatory researcharm of this Congress, have both indi-cated that sure, although the tax cutsmight be able to reach a balancedbudget within the first 5 years, it is 10years from now, 15 years from now thebackloaded provisions of these tax cutsare due to explode the deficit again, atexactly the time when my son Johnnyand many, many children throughoutthis country are going to enter thework force.

What kind of message are we going tobe sending to them in order to score ashort-term political gain right now, byoffering these huge tax cuts so they aregoing to explode the deficit early nextcentury, without identifying the cor-responding spending reductions to payfor it?

I did not come to Congress to vote forthe type of tax measure that is goingto jeopardize my son’s future and thefuture of the children in this country.f

GOOD NEWS FOR AMERICANS OB-SCURED BY PARTISAN RHETORIC(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, first Iwould respond to my colleague, thegentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KIND],and invite him to join us in the Na-tional Debt Repayment Act for thegood of the future and his young child,because that would force us not only tobalance the budget, but after we reachthat, pay off the Federal debt, so hischild may inherit a nation debt free,and they would not have to make in-terest payments.

But I also rise today to call attentionto what is happening in Washington.When we listen to these 1-minutes backand forth, it is so partisan that peopleare forgetting what good is happeninghere for America and how much itmeans to our citizens.

We are on the verge of balancing thebudget probably by 1999, 2 or 3 yearsahead of schedule. Taxes are comingdown for the first time in 16 years, the$500-per-child tax credit, capital gainsis coming down, the death tax is com-ing down, college tuition tax credit, allgood news for America. Medicare is re-stored, so our senior citizens can againrest assured Medicare will be there forthem in the future.

I hear all this hysterical rhetoricabout who is rich and who is not, but Ican tell the Members this much, thefolks I see on Sunday that are sittingthere with three kids and the two par-ents next to them, one off in collegeand two kids still home, they under-stand a tax cut means they get to keep$2,500 more of their own money nextyear.f

TAX RELIEF FOR AMERICA’SWORKING FAMILIES IS COMMONSENSE AND JUSTICE, NOT WEL-FARE

(Mr. STRICKLAND asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, theAmerican people are probably con-fused. Part of the confusion may comefrom the fact that we have so manymillionaires serving in this House andin the Senate that I think the two bod-ies oftentimes lose touch with averageAmericans.

The average family in my districtearns $22,000 a year. Under the Repub-lican plan, most of those familieswould receive nothing from the $500-per-child tax credit. If they earned$60,000 they would receive benefits, butthose who earn $20,000 would receivenothing.

Even Gary Bower, head of the Con-servative Family Research Council, hascriticized the Republican plan for de-nying tax relief to these working fami-lies who make less than $30,000 a year.He has said, ‘‘The family tax creditought to go to any working family thatpays income or payroll taxes.’’

When we provide tax relief to Ameri-ca’s working families, it is not welfare,it is common sense and justice.f

DEMOCRAT HOSTILITY TOWARDTAX RELIEF FOR THE MIDDLECLASS

(Mr. PAPPAS asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, somethings change, some things do not. Itseems that the liberals fall into thesecond category. The truth is, the lib-

eral view of tax relief is about as out ofdate as Barry Manilow.

Let us be clear. I have not thrownaway all of my Barry Manilow cas-settes, but I must say I do not listen tothem much anymore. The problemswith the liberal Democratic ideas aremuch more serious. They are muchmore serious because how they viewtaxes is much more than a matter oftaste. It is a question of what is fairand what is not.

Tax policy has a critical effect onhow many jobs are created, what kindof jobs are created, and of course, howmuch money we get to take home withus from working in those jobs. Wewould never know it from listening tothe liberal Democrats. In fact, I cannoteven recall the last time when theyhave even mentioned the importance ofeconomic growth for the middle class,or how the tax proposal would affecteconomic growth.

So they are still singing the same oldsong about their hostility toward taxrelief for the middle class; oops, I amsorry, I mean, in their eyes, the rich.f

A SIMPLE DEBATE: MOREGOVERNMENT OR MORE FREEDOM

(Mr. RYUN asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, what we aredebating today is very simple: Do webelieve, on the one hand, in more gov-ernment, or, on the other hand, inmore freedom?

Throughout recorded history, fromthe Magna Carta to the Constitution ofthe United States, the struggle hasbeen the same: freedom from govern-ment tyranny. Political freedom, eco-nomic freedom, religious freedom, thefocus of the struggle changes, but thedirection and the goal of the inspira-tion for the cause have always re-mained the same: The human soul de-sires freedom from government oppres-sion, freedom for control of one’s des-tiny, and freedom to worship one’sGod.

The Republican agenda is an answerto that yearning. Mr. Speaker, we willmeet one of those yearnings if we pass,when we pass, the Taxpayer Relief Actof 1997. The hard-working people of mydistrict, the Second District of Kansas,are yearning to keep more of what theyearn. After 16 years of wasteful govern-ment spending, it is high time that wegrant them this freedom.f

THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET PLANIS NEITHER BALANCED NOR FAIR(Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I be-lieve there should be two goals thatdrive any budget plan in this Congress.One is balancing the budget in theshort-term and in the long-term, andsecond is fairness.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5583July 23, 1997I believe that anyone that looks at

the Republican proposal as of todaywould conclude that their plan fails onboth parts. It unbalances the budget,and it is unfair. In fact, the Republicantax plan should be called the Unbal-anced Budget Act, because like themistakes of 1981, when Congress ex-ploded the deficit with specified taxcuts and unspecified spending cuts, thisplan would provide huge tax cuts notbalanced by any spending cuts. Thiswould be the Unbalanced budget Act.

On the issue of fairness, I would sim-ply say that trickle-down economicswas unfair in the 1980’s, and trickle-down economics is unfair in the 1990’s.The fact is that the gap between work-ing low-income and middle-class Amer-ican families and the wealthiest Amer-icans has increased. The Republicantax plan would make that situationeven more unfair.f

b 1030

ANNIVERSARY OF THE PASSINGOF HON. HAMILTON FISH

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today isthe first anniversary of the untimelydeath of one of our outstanding col-leagues, Congressman Hamilton Fish.

As ranking member on the Commit-tee on the Judiciary, CongressmanFish was known as a champion of civilrights and as a Representative of NewYork’s Hudson Valley for 24 years, hewas known as a compassionate and ef-fective spokesperson for the interestsof his district.

Our crime bill of 1992 included Ham’sinitiatives to grapple with the chal-lenge of providing safe and secure envi-ronments for our young people. It is ex-pected that our Committee on Appro-priations will approve continued fund-ing for the institute now named inHam’s memory which seeks solutionsfor juvenile violence in our Nation’sschools.

Congressman Hamilton Fish contin-ued to work with this institute until aweek before his passing. It is a fittingand living memorial to a remarkablelegislator and to a good friend.f

TAX RELIEF

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute and to reviseand extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, let me really tell you how tospell relief: a tax plan for teachers, po-lice officers, firefighters, nurses, wait-ers, waitresses, bus drivers, a tax planfor working people. There is somethingthat is very curious about the Repub-lican statistics and analysis of whythey want to give 67 percent of theirtax plan to the wealthy. They rejectthe Treasury Department’s independ-

ent analysis, the Treasury Departmentthat serviced Presidents Bush, Nixon,and President Reagan, which says thatcategorically the Republican plan has afairness problem.

America, listen to this debate. It isnot frivolous. It is real. If you want atax plan that addresses a child taxcredit for working people who they saydo not pay taxes, but yet when youtake someone who works every day,they might be working for the jani-torial service but they are workingevery day paying payroll taxes or FICAtaxes, you know what we mean. Theydo not get a child tax credit. Spell re-lief with a Democratic tax plan fornurses, working people all over Amer-ica.f

TRUTH AND THE TAX PACKAGE

(Mr. WELDON of Florida asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speak-er, sometimes you have to wonder ifthose on the other side who are talkingabout the tax package are misinformedor simply uninformed. Maybe theyhave not read the bill. Maybe they areso uncomfortable with the idea of taxcuts that they are attacking the billout of habit more than conviction.

Whatever the case, it seems that therhetoric I am hearing has no connec-tion to reality. If a person were to callme and say, hello, I make $500,000 ayear, how would your tax proposal af-fect me, I would have to give him badnews. Would he be eligible for $500 perchild tax credit? No. Would he be eligi-ble for the education tax credit? No.

That is interesting. I thought thatthose were the two biggest provisionsthat were included in this tax package.They are. Not a penny of it goes tohigh income people. Just from this factalone, we can see that the charges thatthis tax cut package goes primarily tothe rich are false.f

A FAIR TAX PLAN

(Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute.)

Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr.Speaker, if Americans are looking for afair tax plan, they should be looking tothe Democratic tax plan and not theRepublican tax plan. The Republicantax plan in the second 5 years explodesthe deficit.

We just saw the figures from theTreasury which shows that in the last5 years, there is a second 5 years, over50 percent of the benefits go to peoplewho are high income earners in thiscountry. That is not a fair tax plan.What we have to do is deliver a taxplan that is fair to all Americans, thatmeans people who are working as well.

I also want to compliment PresidentClinton because yesterday he recog-nized and supported the notion of somesort of means testing for Medicare. I

thought that this was a brave, boldmove because we have to recognizethat it is inevitable that in the yearsto come we are going to have to makesome changes to Medicare. We shouldnot have the hamburger flippers atMcDonald’s subsidizing those who havedone very well. I think that this is achange that is going to come and it isbest to be done through the IRS. It isbest to be done in a worthwhile fairmanner.f

TAX CUTS AND EXCUSES

(Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speak-er, the liberal Democrats, the ones thatgave us the largest tax increase in thehistory of this Nation in 1993, gothrough more excuses why they are op-posed to tax cuts than Victor Newmanon ‘‘The Young and the Restless’’ goesthrough wives.

Another striking parallel is thatthese liberal Democrats change excuseswith as little shame as Victor has whenhe changes wives. One excuse is as goodas another, it seems. It kind of makesyou wonder if these liberal Democratscan be trusted to honor their agree-ment to tax cuts. After all, sooner orlater they will come up with a new ex-cuse why the middle class should be de-nied a long overdue tax cut.

The excuse does not even have to bea good one, as long as they can act likethey are morally outraged. Sure, wecan make up new definitions of who therich are so that millions of middle-class families can kiss their tax cutsgoodbye. Or we can falsely claim thatletting people keep more of their ownmoney is some kind of lucky tax give-away. Or we can complain that peoplewith no taxes to cut are not going toget a tax cut. Excuses, excuses.f

AMERICANS WERE PROMISED TAXRELIEF

(Ms. DELAURO asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, talkabout little shame or no shame, I risetoday to remind my Republican col-leagues including the last speaker andothers this morning of a promise thatthey made to the American people justa few short years ago; do they remem-ber? The Contract With America, itemNo. 5 of that contract promised a $500per child credit to all, all of America’sfamilies who work and who pay taxes.

Now my Republican colleagues wantto deny the child tax credit to millionsof families who earn less than $30,000 ayear. These parents are carpenters,dental assistants, rookie police offi-cers, kindergarten teachers, but theRepublicans call them welfare recipi-ents.

These are working parents. They arenot on welfare. They work hard every

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH5584 July 23, 1997single day and they pay taxes, usuallymore in payroll taxes than in incometaxes, and more in payroll taxes, Iwould imagine, than the wealthiest one1 or 2 percent that our Republican col-leagues would like to reward.

Democrats believe these are the par-ents who deserve the tax relief. Re-member, my friends, the contract thatyou signed.

f

SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN TAXCUT PROPOSAL

(Mr. HERGER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, 2 millionlow- and middle-income Americans arewaiting to see if this Congress willeliminate their tax burden. That isright, Mr. Speaker. According to thenonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax-ation, 2 million Americans will nolonger pay income taxes at all if theRepublican House-passed tax cut pro-posal becomes law; not 2 million richAmericans, as my Democrat friendsfrom the other side of the aisle wouldhave us believe, but 2 million strug-gling low- and middle-income Ameri-cans who barely make enough to sup-port their families but still are forcedto pay income taxes. Our tax cuts help2 million Americans that most need itby taking them off the income tax rollscompletely.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my col-leagues to support the RepublicanHouse tax cut proposal that will trulybenefit all Americans.

f

OUR QUEST FOR TAX RELIEF

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I feel likeour quest for tax relief is like a fewlines from the song by the Lord of LaMancha: To dream the impossibledream, to right the unrightable wrong,to bear with unbearable sorrow.

It has been 16 years since we havehad tax relief, and still we hear somany reasons why we have to voteagainst the tax relief plan.

When you do not want to do some-thing like vote for tax relief, any ex-cuse is a good excuse: too much for therich, even though the rich are consid-ered a family of four where each parentis making $32,000 a year; not enough in-come tax relief for those who are con-sidered poor, even though they pay noincome tax.

There will be only one tax reliefpackage to vote for, it will be theagreement between the Congress, thePresident, and the American people.There will be no excuse for votingagainst tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, let us dream the impos-sible dream. Let us give tax relief toworking Americans.

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBERAS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2003

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that I be removedas a cosponsor of H.R. 2003.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LATOURETTE). Is there objection to therequest of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.f

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBERAS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2003

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that my name beremoved as a cosponsor of H.R. 2003.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.f

BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF1997

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by directionof the Committee on Rules, I call upHouse Resolution 192 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 192

Resolved, That upon the adoption of thisresolution it shall be in order to consider inthe House the bill (H.R. 2003) to reform thebudget process and enforce the bipartisanbalanced budget agreement of 1997. The billshall be considered as read for amendment.The previous question shall be considered asordered on the bill to final passage withoutintervening motion except: (1) one hour ofdebate equally divided and controlled byRepresentative Barton of Texas or his des-ignee and a Member opposed to the bill; and(2) one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from Florida [Mr. GOSS] is rec-ognized for 1 hour.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the pur-pose of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Texas [Mr. FROST], my colleagueand friend, pending which I yield my-self such time as I may consume. Dur-ing consideration of this resolution alltime yielded is for the purpose of de-bate only.

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks and to include extraneous mate-rial.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this rule andtoday’s debate reflect the essence of anagreement reached on June 25 as theHouse moved to pass legislation imple-menting the historic budget agree-ment. That agreement was to allow anup or down vote prior to July 24 onH.R. 2003, which had been offered as anamendment to reconciliation by thegentleman from Texas [Mr. BARTON],the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.MINGE], and some of our other col-leagues. This rule fulfills that agree-ment. Promises made; promises kept.

Today this House will vote on H.R.2003, a budget process reform proposaladvocated by a bipartisan group ofMembers. This rule is limited just to

provide for the agreement and it doesnot allow amendment. Not only is thiscustomary for legislation that dealswith entitlement and tax legislationwithin the jurisdiction of the Commit-tee on Ways and Means, but it also cap-tures the moment at which the actualagreement was made to bring this for-ward to allow the House to considerH.R. 2003 as presented on June 25.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debatein the House to be equally divided bythe gentleman from Texas [Mr. BAR-TON] and an opponent. We have dis-cussed in the Committee on Rules thatthe time will be divided in such a wayas to accommodate Members from bothsides of the aisle on both sides of theissue and for all of the committeeswith an interest. Managers will yieldfloor time appropriately. In additionthe rule provides for the customarymotion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, as I have outlined,Members understand that we have gonethrough an unusual process here to getto this point. All three of the primarycommittees with jurisdiction over thislegislation, that is, the Committee onthe Budget, the Committee on Waysand Means, and the Committee onRules, have agreed to waive their rightto weigh in on this proposal in the in-terest of granting H.R. 2003 its unfet-tered vote as promised.

For something of this magnitude andcomplexity, that in itself is rather ex-traordinary under Republican leader-ship. In addition, in doing this Mem-bers should be aware of a process thathas been under way for some time inthe Committee on the Budget, theCommittee on Rules, in the policycommittee and among various groupsof individual Members to reach delib-erative and consensus solutions on howbest to reform our budget process. Inother words, we are focusing on thisanyway, and we are now taking thisextra step because of this arrangementwith the gentleman from Texas [Mr.BARTON] and the gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. MINGE].

I think we all agree that there is avery real need for review and reform ofthe process of our budget. But that ef-fort should be done, in my view, in adeliberate and inclusive way that takesfull advantage of the expertise that canbe found within our committee systemwhich has served this institution andthis country so well over the years. Ihave always argued that changing thebudget process must lead to an im-provement in the process, not just adifferent, equally flawed approach.Change for change’s sake is not goingto get us anywhere.

As chairman of the Subcommittee onLegislative and Budget Process, I am alittle bit familiar with the problems ofour current budget framework. Notonly is it complicated and hard to un-derstand, but it frankly does not workvery well and it does not hold electedofficials accountable enough, of course.Moreover, I agree with the proponentsof the legislation before us today that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5585July 23, 1997

*Footnotes at end of article.

our current budget process does notadequately confront the challenge ofimposing discipline on entitlementspending, which is a very tough sub-ject.

In the Committee on Rules we heldthree hearings in the last Congress onthe subject of budget reform. We havebeen working closely with the Commit-tee on the Budget this year to developproposals for reform. The gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SOLOMON] and thegentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH]have committed to developing a com-prehensive budget process reform pack-age in this Congress. So we are on ourway to doing this anyway.

In the short-term I have been verypleased with the cooperative effort wehave had with the Committee on theBudget on a bipartisan basis vettingwhat I will call cleanup provisions inreconciliation to streamline existingprocedures. This is an important firststep in budget process reform but obvi-ously it is not comprehensive or com-plete.

The bill before us today has a dif-ferent parentage. It is not the businessas usual approach of the committeesystem. It is a product of an evolutionfrom Member to Member, and outsidegroup to outside group over severalyears. It has not been properly vettedthrough the committee system, and itsauthors have admitted as much by say-ing that further changes are needed.

In the Committee on Rules last nightwe heard discussion of the need for‘‘technical amendments and revisionsin this bill.’’

b 1045

So it is not quite right even yet.In my view, the problems with this

bill go beyond drafting errors into sub-stance. For instance, I do not think wewill be improving the transparency andthe credibility of our budget process bygrafting 15 new very complicated sec-tions onto the already complicatedBudget Act.

In addition, I am troubled by the au-thority this bill cedes to the Presidentto define the parameters of budget en-forcement.

I also have concerns that this billrepresents a first step down the verydangerous road toward automatic taxincreases. That is what I said. Auto-matic tax increases. I do not think weare ready for that yet. It threatens toundo all the agreements and commit-ments that have been made to providegenuine tax relief to America’s tax-payers.

I cannot support an approach thatgives the President the authority toset in motion indefinite delay in thechild tax credit that we are working sohard for, or delay of the capital gainstax we are working so hard for, ordelay of the estate tax reduction weare working so hard for, or a host ofthe indexing provisions we are talkingabout.

Our budget problems are not the re-sult of too little revenue. They are the

problem of too much spending and toomuch government and we all know it.In this regard, this bill operates undera basic flawed assumption.

With respect to entitlements, thisbill is also troubling. I served on theKerrey Commission on entitlement andtax reform, and I learned a great dealin the process. I well understand theproblem we have with entitlements. Weare on an unsustainable trend and wehave to make some tough decisions,but this bill raises almost as manyquestions as it answers in terms of theprocess by which the very importantdecisions about handling entitlementspending would be made. It puts SocialSecurity COLA’s at risk of automaticspending cuts.

Now, I cannot imagine anybody whoreally would stand up for that propo-sition to say we are going to put SocialSecurity COLA’s into an automaticspending cut process. That is not goingto hack it with the people that we rep-resent and it should not.

Also, this approach that we are goingto consider today provides for the pos-sibility of automatic increases in Medi-care premiums. Again, I do not thinkthe constituency we represent, cer-tainly not mine in southwest Florida,is going to jump up and applaud veryloudly automatic increases in Medicarepremiums.

Mr. Speaker, the proponents of thislegislation are sincere in their effortand I congratulate them on it. Theyare striving to get enforcement teethinto the budget process, and we need itand I agree. It is just a question of howand when, and I do not think their ap-proach today is how or when.

I admire their persistence in gettingtoday’s debate. It shows good leader-ship and good commitment, and I wel-come them into our process throughthe committee process of budget re-form, particularly focusing on enforce-ment with teeth.

I find the product we are workingwith today seriously flawed. I hope theHouse will defeat it so we can get backto work in developing the budget proc-ess reform that we have been workingon.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the RECORDthe following section-by-section sum-mary of H.R. 2003 and several lettersconcerning this issue:SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF H.R. 2003,

THE ‘‘BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1997’’PREPARED BY THE MAJORITY STAFF OF THECOMMITTEE ON RULES, JULY 22, 1997

GENERAL SUMMARY

H.R. 2003 establishes a new set of budgetenforcement procedures specifically for thepurpose of enforcing the direct spending lev-els and the deficit and revenue targets as-sumed in the Bipartisan Balanced BudgetAgreement of 1997. This Act would be a free-standing set of procedures, another layer ofbudget rules and requirements laid over topof the existing Budget Act. The Presidentand Congress would now be required to fol-low the rules and procedures of three dif-ferent, yet comprehensive statutes (the Con-gressional Budget and Impoundment ControlAct of 1974, the Balanced Budget and Emer-

gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and theBudget Enforcement Act of 1997), all de-signed to dictate the actions of the budgetprocess.

This Act contains two titles. The first out-lines how the goals of the budget agreementwill be measured and monitored and whatthe distinct roles of the President and theCongress would be in this monitoring proc-ess. The second title provides the methods bywhich the spending levels and the revenueand deficit targets will be enforced throughsequestration and/or a delay of tax reduc-tions.Section 1: Short Title and Table of Contents

This section grants this Act the title of the‘‘Budget Enforcement Act of 1997’’. This sec-tion also lays out the table of contents forthe Act’s 15 new free standing budget processprovisions.Section 2: Definitions

This section provides the definitions forvarious budgetary terms as they are to beunderstood in implementing the provisionsof this Act including the following: ‘‘eligiblepopulation,’’ ‘‘sequester and sequestration,’’‘‘breach,’’ ‘‘baseline,’’ ‘‘budgetary re-sources,’’ ‘‘discretionary appropriations,’’‘‘direct spending,’’ ‘‘entitlement authority,’’‘‘current,’’ ‘‘account,’’ ‘‘budget year,’’ ‘‘cur-rent year,’’ ‘‘outyear,’’ ‘‘OMB,’’ ‘‘CBO,’’‘‘budget outlays and outlays,’’ ‘‘budget au-thority and new budget authority,’’ ‘‘appro-priation act,’’ ‘‘consolidated deficit,’’ ‘‘sur-plus,’’ and ‘‘direct spending caps.’’

Many of these terms and definitions aresimilar to those currently used and definedin the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 andthe Balanced Budget and Emergency DeficitControl Act of 1985 (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act). However, there are some newterms and some old terms with new defini-tions. For example, the definition of ‘‘seques-ter and sequestration’’ is the same as thatused in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings while thedefinition of what constitutes a ‘‘breach’’ isdifferent than that contained in current law.Under current law ‘‘the term ‘breach’ means,for any fiscal year, the amount (if any) bywhich new budget authority or outlays forthat year (within a category of discretionaryappropriations) is above that category’s dis-cretionary spending limit for new budget au-thority or outlays for that year, as the casemay be.’’ 1 Under H.R. 2003 ‘‘the term ‘breach’means, for any fiscal year, the amount (ifany) by which outlays for that year (withina category of direct spending) is above thatcategory’s direct sending cap for that fiscalyear.’’ For the purposes of this Act a‘‘breach’’ is defined as first only applying todirect spending and secondly as only apply-ing to budget outlays as opposed to budgetauthority or outlays. Since the Act does notrepeal any of the current Budget Act, thisbill adds a second definition to what con-stitutes a ‘‘breach’’. Other new terms include‘‘direct spending caps’’ and ‘‘consolidateddeficit’’. Other older terms with new defini-tions include ‘‘discretionary appropriations’’and ‘‘baseline’’.Title I—Ensure that the Bipartisan BalancedBudget Agreement of 1997 Achieves Its Goal

Section 101: TimetableThis section establishes a new timetable

for completion of the new requirementsplaced on the President and Congress underthis Act. This timetable would be an addi-tion to the current timetable relating to thesubmission of the President’s budget, con-gressional consideration of a budget resolu-tion and any required reconciliation legisla-tion and any sequestration or budget reportsrequired of OMB or CBO.2

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH5586 July 23, 1997Due to the fact that these new procedures

would be an addition to the current rules,certain difficulties and complications arise.For example, the Congressional Budget Of-fice would now be required to submit two re-ports to Congress, one by January 15 3 andanother by February 15.4 There is no expla-nation as to who the two required reportsdiffer or are similar. They are simply re-quired.

Also, under current law, the President isrequired to submit his budget proposal bythe first Monday in February. H.R. 2003 alsorequires the President to submit a ‘‘budgetupdate based on new assumptions’’ by thissame deadline. What this actually requires isunclear. Would this require the President tosubmit two budget proposals based on twodifferent assumptions? Section 103 of the Actactually establishes a new point of orderagainst Congressional consideration of anybudget proposal that is not based on the‘‘new assumptions’’ or that is consistentwith the levels of this Act. Furthermore,having two timetables for the budget proc-ess, each with different requirements forboth the President and Congress, in two dif-ferent statues, further complicates the budg-et process.Section 102: Procedures to Avoid Sequestration

or Delay of New Revenue ReductionsUnder this section the President is re-

quired to submit to Congress a legislativeremedy if the required report by November 1(and as soon as practical after the end of thefiscal year) of the Office of Management andBudget indicates any of the following:

1. deficits in the most recently completedyear exceeded or in the budget year are pro-jected to exceed the deficit targets estab-lished in this Act; or

2. revenues in the most recently completedyear were less than or in the budget year areprojected to be less than the revenue targetsin this Act; or

3. outlays in the most recently completedfiscal year exceeded or in the budget year areprojected to exceed the spending caps estab-lished in this Act.

The President’s legislative remedy maytake any one or a combination of threeforms:

1. a reduction in outlays;2. an increase in revenues, or3. an increase in the deficit targets or

spending caps or a reduction in the revenuetargets.However, the Act is unclear whether thePresident may propose a remedy that seeksto adjust the caps or targets for only a partof the breach or violation or whether thePresident must adjust the caps or targets tocover the entire breach. While one sub-section of the bill lists it as an option for thePresident’s package that same subsectionalso contains language preventing the Presi-dent from using such an option. The Presi-dent may also submit in writing, that be-cause of economic or programmatic reasonsnone of the variances from the balancedbudget plan should be offset. There is no def-inition as to what constitutes a pro-grammatic reason for not offsetting the vari-ance.5

Upon receipt of this report, with its pro-posed legislative remedy, Congress is re-quired by November 15 to introduce thePresident’s package as a joint resolution bythe Chairmen of the Budget Committees ofthe House and the Senate. If the chairmen donot introduce the bill, any Member of theHouse or Senate may introduce the joint res-olution after November 15. Also, by Novem-ber 15, the Budget Committees are requiredto report the joint resolution with or with-out amendment. The timeline set out theseexpedited procedures is inconsistent as both

the introduction and committee action mustbe completed by the same date.

Specifically, the Committee may eitherrecommend the President’s proposal or mayrecommend changes similar to those rec-ommended by the President. However, if thePresident had recommended to adjust thecaps or targets, the Committees could notrecommend doing so by any amount greaterthan that originally recommended by thePresident. In this way the President solelydetermines the scope of the actions permis-sible by Congress.

If the Committees do not report by Novem-ber 20, the committee is automatically dis-charged from consideration of the joint reso-lution reflecting the President’s rec-ommendation. (There is no explanation as towhy the committee has until November 15 toreport the joint resolution when the commit-tee is not automatically discharged from fur-ther consideration until November 20.) Fur-thermore, the Act sets up that, upon this dis-charge, any Member may move to considerthe resolution. There is no notice or timelayover requirement stated. (Although, thenext subsection says that the joint resolu-tion would be considered pursuant to Section305 of the Budget Act, which states that it isnot in order to consider a resolution and itsreport—at which this point there would notbe one—that has not laid over for five days. 6)The joint resolution would be consideredunder the same procedures as that requiredfor consideration of a concurrent resolutionon the budget. Special procedures for consid-eration by the Senate and a conference areestablished. Most notable is the automaticdischarge of the Committee on the Budget ofthe Senate by December 1 of any joint reso-lution passed by the House and transmittedto the House after a one day layover. Also,the Senate may initially consider a joint res-olution which may propose to offset all orpart of any reported breach. However, whenthe joint resolution reaches the stage of aconference, the conference committee mayonly report a resolution that proposes to off-set the entire breach. The most glaring errorof these procedures is that they fail to takeinto consideration the possibility that Con-gress may have adjourned sine die prior tothis report having even been received byCongress. This may actually necessitateCongress coming into a special session afteran election. In non-election years, Congressmay actually be forced to stay in sessionuntil November 1 when the OMB report isdue. These procedures are fatally flawed inmany areas.Section 103: Effect on President’s Budget Sub-

missions; Point of OrderThe President is prohibited by this section

from submitting a budget pursuant to Title31 of the United States Code that is incon-sistent with the spending, revenue and defi-cit levels established by this Act unless itrecommends changes to those levels. Thissection also establishes a new point of orderagainst the consideration of any concurrentresolution on the budget that is inconsistentwith the levels established in this Act.

First of all, while the President is able toget around the prohibition placed on the Ad-ministration’s budget submission by propos-ing to change the levels, Congress is notgranted any exception to the point of orderagainst consideration of a budget resolutionthat is different. In other words, in order forCongress to consider a budget resolutionthat calls for changes in the levels, it wouldhave to waive the provisions of this sectionin order to even consider the President’s rec-ommendations. Congress is prohibited fromconsidering the President’s recommendedchanges. Furthermore, the actual legislativevehicle for consideration of changes in caps

and/or targets is a reconciliation bill ratherthan a budget resolution since the latter isnot signed into law.

Secondly, while the requirements of thePresident apply only to the budget submis-sions for fiscal years 1998 through 2002, thepoint of order in the House and Senate is in-definite.Section 104: Deficit and Revenue Targets

This Act places in law the actual dollarlevels of the Consolidated Deficit (or Sur-plus) targets called for in the BipartisanBudget Agreement for fiscal years 1998through 2002. It also establishes the consoli-dated revenue targets assumed in the Agree-ment for fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

Section 1 of H.R. 2003 defines the ‘‘consoli-dated deficit target’’ to mean ‘‘with respectto a fiscal year, the amount by which totaloutlays exceed total receipts during thatyear.’’ The term ‘‘consolidated revenue tar-get’’ is not defined.Section 105: Direct Spending Caps

This section establishes direct spendingcaps on the following major entitlements:the Earned Income Tax Credit, Family Sup-port programs, Federal Retirement (Civilianand Military), Medicaid, Medicare, SocialSecurity, Supplemental Security Income,Unemployment Compensation, and Veterans’Benefits. All other entitlements and manda-tory spending programs not included in thesemajor categories are to be lumped togetherunder one account. Furthermore, one overallaggregate cap is to be placed over all of theseindividual direct spending caps.

Within thirty days of the enactment ofthis Act, the House and Senate Budget Com-mittees are required to file identical reportscontaining the account numbers and spend-ing levels for each specific category. Also,within thirty days of the enactment of thisAct, OMB is required to submit to the Presi-dent and Congress a report containing ac-count numbers and spending levels for eachcategory. The specific amounts for each cat-egory contained in these reports is deemedto have been adopted as part of H.R. 2003.

While the specific category spending limitsestablished under this section are to be usedfor the purposes of measurement, monitoringand eventually enforcement, certain com-plications could arise. First, the reports filedby the House and Senate Budget Committeesare nothing more than a statement of thepriorities of these committees. The levels inthe OMB report are the levels that actuallyare utilized. While the House and the Senatereports are required to be identical, there isnothing requiring the OMB report to be simi-lar to that issued by these committees. Thesole responsibility for determining these in-dividual direct spending caps rests with theexecutive branch. Consequently, OMB willmost probably use their account numbersand category spending limits for the reportsthey must file. Furthermore, the CBO has norole in these determinations.Section 106: Economic Assumptions

The entire budget process establishedunder this Act is to be monitored under com-mon economic assumptions as set forth inthe joint explanatory statement of managersaccompanying H.Con.Res. 84, the budget res-olution for fiscal year 1998. Any changes tothe caps or targets must be computed usingthese same assumptions. There is no expla-nation as to who will be the final arbiter be-tween the CBO and the OMB if any disagree-ments over economic assumptions arise overthe next five fiscal years.Section 107: Revisions to Deficit and Revenue

Targets and to the Caps for Entitlementsand Other Mandatory Spending

This section establishes procedures for theimplementation and consideration and/or

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5587July 23, 1997consultation by Congress of any changes tothe spending caps or revenue and deficit tar-gets. Upon the submission of the President’sbudget proposal in February, the OMB is re-quired to include adjustments to the revenuelevels for changes in revenue growth and in-flation; adjustments to the direct spendingcaps for changes in concepts and definitions,net outlays, inflation, eligible populationsand intra-budgetary payments; and adjust-ments to deficit targets as necessitated byadjustments in the other levels. These ad-justments would be automatic and would notnecessarily need Congressional approval.This type of adjustment is somewhat con-sistent with current law as applied to thediscretionary spending limits.7

However, the Act establishes various ob-stacles in the path of adjusting the caps forany other reason. First, to amend the directspending caps would require a recorded votein the House and the Senate. It is alsodeemed to be a ‘‘matter of highest privilege’’for any Member to insist on a recorded vote.This is required even though Congress didnot originally have a recorded vote on estab-lishing each direct spending cap in the firstplace. Also, there is no current understand-ing as to what a matter of ‘‘highest privi-lege’’ is. Presumably, such a motion as in-tended by the sponsors would preclude a mo-tion to rise if in the Committee of the Wholeor to adjourn if in the House.

Finally, this section places an unprece-dented prohibition on the ability of theRules Committee to waive any of the provi-sions of this subsection. (However, the Sen-ate can do so by a three-fifth vote). The rulesand procedures relating to the congressionalbudget process are exclusively within the ju-risdiction of the Rules Committee and everylegislative initiative enacted with respect tothe budget process is done within the Con-stitutional rule-making authority of theHouse of Representatives. The Rules Com-mittee still could waive the provisions ofthis section because it would merely have toreport a resolution, which waives this sec-tion with respect to another resolution that‘‘violates’’ this section. This is the so calledtwo-step rule.

Title II: Enforcement ProvisionsSection 201: Reporting Excess Spending

At the end of each fiscal year, OMB is re-quired to compile a statement of actual defi-cits, revenues and direct spending for the fis-cal year just completed. Specifically, the di-rect spending levels would be identified bythe categories contained in section 105.

Based on this statement, OMB is requiredto issue a report to the President and Con-gress by December 15 for any year in whichthere is a breach, by more than 1% of the ap-plicable total revenues or direct spending, ofthe targets or caps establish under this Act.The report will include the following:

1. each instance in which a direct spendingcap has been breached;

2. the difference between the amount ofspending under the direct spending caps forthe current year and the estimated actualspending for the categories associated withsuch caps;

3. the amounts by which direct spendingwould need to be reduced so that the totalamount of direct spending, both actual andestimated, for all of the categories would notexceed the amounts available under the di-rect caps for the applicable fiscal years; and,

4. the amount of excess spending attrib-utable to changes in inflation or eligible pop-ulations.

This report is triggered only if the totalviolation of the revenue targets or spendingcaps exceeds 1% of the applicable total reve-nues or direct spending for that year. Alower percentage violation is deemed to beall right.

Section 202: Enforcing Direct Spending Caps

In any year in which direct spending ex-ceeds the applicable direct spending cap—theindividual or the aggregate—the breachwould be eliminated pursuant to a sequester.This sequester would apply a uniform per-centage reduction to all non-exempt ac-counts within that category in which thebreach occurred. Sequestration in accountsfor which obligations are indefinite wouldoccur in a manner to ensure that obligationsin the fiscal year in which the sequester oc-curred and succeeding fiscal years, are re-duced. Furthermore, any ‘‘budgetary re-sources’’ sequestered from an account arepermanently canceled. This sequester mech-anism is similar in many respects to thatunder current law.8

Section 203: Sequestration Rules

In applying the sequester mechanism tothe direct spending caps, this section estab-lishes certain general rules to apply to allcategories and certain special rules to applyto some categories. In general, a sequester istriggered if total direct spending subject tothe caps exceeds or is projected to exceed theaggregate cap for the current or imme-diately preceding fiscal year. Also, a seques-ter will reduce spending under each separatedirect spending cap by the proportion of theamounts each category breached its applica-ble spending cap.

Special rules are included with respect tothe application of a sequester to certain en-titlements involving indexed benefit pay-ments, loan programs, insurance programs,and programs with state grant formulas.

Section 203 also provides that if a law isenacted prior to July 1 of a fiscal year thatprovides direct spending that would result ina breach of any direct spending cap duringthe current year, a within-session sequestershould occur to eliminate the breach. Againthis is similar to the within-session seques-ter under current law with respect to the en-forcement of the discretionary spending lim-its.9

Section 204: Enforcing Revenue Targets

In any fiscal year in which actual revenuesare less than the applicable revenue target inthe preceding fiscal year or projected to beless than the applicable revenue target inthe current year, the mechanism in this sec-tion takes effect. Based upon the statementof OMB pursuant to section 201(a), OMB shallissue a report to the President and the Con-gress by December 15 of any year in whichrevenues were less than the revenue targetestablished under this Act for the precedingfiscal year or are projected to be less thanthe revenue target established for the cur-rent fiscal year if such a violation is morethan 1 percent of the applicable total reve-nue target for such year. This report shallinclude the following:

1. all existing laws and policies enacted aspart of any reconciliation legislation in cal-endar year 1997 which would cause revenuesto decline in the calendar year which beginsJanuary 1, compared to those laws and poli-cies in effect as of December 15 (i.e. any taxcuts scheduled to be phased in during the up-coming fiscal year under current law);

2. the amounts by which revenues would bereduced by the provisions of this sectioncompared to policies in effect on December15; and,

3. whether delaying the implementation ofthe provisions called for under current lawwould cause the total revenues in the cur-rent fiscal year and actual revenues in theimmediately preceding fiscal year to equalor exceed the total of the applicable targets.

If a revenue target was not met in the pre-ceding fiscal year or is not projected to bemet in the current fiscal year, this section

requires that no provision of the RevenueReconciliation Act of 1997 establishing or in-creasing any credit, deduction, exclusion, oreligibility limit or reducing any rate shalltake effect. It also requires the suspension ofany new adjustments for inflation scheduledto be made to any credit, deduction or exclu-sion.

In the event a revenue target is not metthis section would require that any remain-ing tax reductions already enacted into lawbe suspended indefinitely. There is no provi-sion allowing these scheduled tax cuts to bereinstated should a projection be inaccurateor for Congress to substitute further spend-ing reductions for the loss in revenue. If fact,the various procedural obstacles containedin section 102, section 103, and section 107 ofthis Act virtually assure that the only op-tion available to remedy the target violationwill be a suspension of the tax relief. ThePresident is required to remedy the violationunless Congress and the President can writea new law between November 1 and Decem-ber 15 of the applicable calendar year resolv-ing the issue in another manner. Allowingthe process to proceed by itself will result inan automatic tax increase with respect tocurrent law. Furthermore, there is no discre-tion given to the President to delay somewhile implementing others. In any affectedyear all of the scheduled tax relief for thatfiscal year must be suspended permanently.Section 205: Exempt Programs and Activities

This section outlines those programswhich would be exempt from the sequestra-tion mechanism established under this Act.As compared to current law,10 this sectionremoves from the list of exempted programsthe following major programs: Social Secu-rity and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits,Veterans programs, the Earned Income TaxCredit, Child Nutrition, the Food Stamp Pro-gram, Medicaid, Supplemental Security In-come, and Women, Infants and Children. TheAct retains the current law optional exemp-tion of military personnel from the uniformpercentage reductions taken under thisAct.11

It should be noted that these modificationsto the list of programs exempt from seques-tration only apply to the implementation ofthe sequester mechanism established underthis Act and not to that under current law.Different rules apply to the application ofthe two sequester mechanisms.Section 206: Special Rules

Section 206 establishes further specialrules for the application of the sequestermechanism to certain programs such as theChild Support Enforcement Program, theCommodity Credit Corporation, the DairyProgram, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Un-employment Compensation, the Federal Em-ployees Health Benefits Fund, the FederalHousing Finance Board, Federal Pay, Medi-care, the Postal Service Fund, Power Mar-keting Administrations and the T.V.A. andto business-like transactions of the Federalgovernment.

However, each of these special rules do notprovide exemptions for these programs butrather spell out in advance how a sequesteris to be applied in each respective case. Forexample, under any program that provides abusiness-like service in exchange for a fee,sequestration would be accomplishedthrough a uniform increase in the fees paidfor the service whatever it may be. In thecase of Medicare, sequestration would be in-stituted under complex procedures whichwould result in, among other things, in-creases in Part B premiums for beneficiaries.

Furthermore, in each of the cases, thisbudget process reform bill establishes howprogrammatic changes would occur in eachof these direct spending programs in order to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH5588 July 23, 1997produce the required levels of savings in theapplicable program. In many of these cases,the proposed method of programmaticchange actually conflicts with the stated in-tent of the underlying policy of the Biparti-san Balanced Budget Agreement which thisentire Act is supposed to enforce.

Section 207: The Current Law Baseline

By January 15 of each year, OMB and CBOare required to submit to Congress and thePresident reports which set forth the budgetbaselines for the budget year and the nextnine fiscal years. These budget baselines areto be based on the common economic as-sumptions set forth in section 106 of thisAct.12 This new budget baseline would applyto the budget projections of revenues, defi-cits and spending into the budget year andthe relevant outyears based on current en-acted laws as of the date of the projection.The baseline for discretionary spendingitems would remain those for the discre-tionary spending caps in effect under currentlaw at the time.13 Revisions to the baselinewould occur through adjustments for eco-nomic assumptions when CBO issues its Eco-nomic and Budget Update and when OMBsubmits its budget update. Further adjust-ments could occur as needed by August 1 ofeach year when CBO and OMB submit theirmidyear reviews.

The dilemma facing this construct of thebudget baseline is the assumption that thebaseline and any revisions thereto will re-main common economic assumptionsthroughout the period of FY 1998 through2002. There is no explanation as to what mustoccur if CBO and OMB cannot agree on com-mon economic assumptions pursuant to sec-tion 106 of this Act.

Section 208: Limitations on Emergency Spending

In an attempt to enable Congress to re-spond more effectively to natural disastersand other emergencies, this section requiresthat 1 percent of the total budget authorityand outlays available to be allocated, bewithheld from allocation to the appropriatecommittees as reserves to pay for disastersand emergencies. These reserved amountsmay be made available for allocation to com-mittees only if three things occur:

1. the President has made a request forthese funds,

2. the programs to be funded are includedin such a request, and

3. ‘‘the projected obligations for unforeseenemergency needs exceed the 10-year rollingaverage annual expenditures for existing pro-grams included in the Presidential requestfor the applicable fiscal year.’’

This grants the President an enormous ad-vantage over the congressional prerogativeto allocate and spend the reserved amounts.Congress cannot allocate these funds with-out the prior approval of the President.Therefore, it cannot, without violating theseprovisions, act unilaterally to respond toany emergency prior to a Presidential dec-laration of one.

This Act also prohibits states or localitiesfrom using any disaster reserve funds to off-set state or locality matching requirements.Furthermore, it forbids the President fromtaking administrative action to waive thesematching requirements. Waiving thesematching requirements via legislation wouldrequire a two-thirds vote of both Houses.These prohibitions seem to go beyond thestated intent of this section.

Furthermore, there seems to be differenttypes of disasters and emergencies (includingnatural disasters and national securityemergencies) referred to in various sub-sections of this section. It is not clearwhether the prohibitions on the availabilityof these funds would be applicable to both.

Some subsections appear to allow its usewhile others do not.

This final section is the only section ofH.R. 2003 that actually amends the Congres-sional Budget Act of 1974. Section 208 wouldadd a new point of order under Title IV ofthe Budget Act to prevent the considerationin the House and Senate of any bill, jointresolution or amendment thereto or con-ference report thereon that is designated asan emergency, if it also contains a non-emer-gency appropriation or direct spending pro-vision.14 This is similar to the House ruleXXI(2)(e) adopted at the beginning of the104th Congress. The language is almost iden-tical to that contained in the House rule.The effect of amending the Budget Act wouldapply the provisions of this rule to both theHouse and the Senate.

FOOTNOTES

1 Section 250(c)(3) of the Deficit Control Act of1985.

2 Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of1974.

3 Section 101 of H.R. 2003, as introduced by Rep.Barton on June 20, 1997.

4 Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of1974.

5 Section 102(a)(3)(C)(iii) of H.R. 2003 as introducedby Rep. Barton on June 20, 1997.

6 Section 305(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974.

7 Section 251(b) of the Deficit Control Act of 1985.8 Section 251 and Section 254 of the Deficit Control

Act of 1985.9 Section 251(a)(6) of the Deficit Control Act of

1985.10 Section 255 of the Deficit Control Act of 1985.11 Section 255(h) of the Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Note the correct cite should be designated as sub-section (j).

12 This is summarized in the joint explanatorystatement of managers accompanying H. Con. Res.84, the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998.

13 Section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Actof 1974.

14 Emergency designations are made pursuant tosection 251(b)(2)(D) or section 252(e) of the BalancedBudget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 orof section 208 of the Balanced Budget EnforcementAct of 1997. The bill actually refers to the latter Actas section 207 of the Balanced Budget Assurance Actof 1997. The correct cite is section 208 of the Bal-anced Budget Enforcement Act of 1997.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.Hon. NEWT GINGRICH,The Speaker, The Capitol,Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am writing regardingconsideration of H.R. 2003, the ‘‘Budget En-forcement Act of 1997,’’ which was intro-duced on June 20, 1997, by Representative JoeBarton, et. al. The bill, as introduced, wasreferred to the Committee on Budget, and inaddition, to the Committees on Ways andMeans and Rules.

Among other things, the bill would sepa-rate direct spending caps of the Earned In-come Tax Credit, Family Support, Medicare,Social Security, SSI, and UnemploymentCompensation programs which are withinthe jurisdiction of the Committee on Waysand Means. The caps would be enforcedthrough targeted sequestrations of these pro-grams. This could include automatic delaysin cost of living adjustments and premiumincreases. In addition, the bill would provide,if certain revenue targets are not met, forthe suspension of the phase-in of any tax re-ductions provided in the 1997 Taxpayer ReliefAct, and suspension of inflation-based ad-justments to any credit, deduction, or exclu-sion enacted as part of the tax bill.

During the recent floor debate on the rec-onciliation legislation, Representative Bar-ton stated his understanding that the Lead-ership and the committees of jurisdictionwould work in an expeditious fashion toallow H.R. 2003 to receive floor consideration

prior to July 24. I now understand that thebill may be scheduled for floor action asearly as the week of July 21.

Therefore, in order to expedite consider-ation of this legislation by the full House,the Committee on Ways and Means will notbe marking up H.R. 2003. However, this isonly with the understanding that it does notin any way prejudice the Committee’s juris-dictional prerogatives in the future with re-spect to this measure or any similar legisla-tion, and it should not be considered asprecedent for consideration of matters of ju-risdictional interest to the Committee onWays and Means in the future.

Thank you for consideration of this mat-ter. With best personal regards.

Sincerely,BILL ARCHER, Chairman.

COMMITTEE ON RULES,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, July 21, 1997.Hon. NEWT GINGRICH,Speaker of the House,Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I respectfully ask thatthe Committee on Rules be discharged fromthe further consideration of H.R. 2003, theBudget Enforcement Act of 1997.

H.R. 2003 was introduced on June 20, 1997by Representatives Barton and Minge, andothers, and was referred to the Committeeson the Budget, Rules, and Ways and Means.During the consideration of a rule for H.R.2015, the Balanced Budget Act and H.R. 2014,the Taxpayer Relief Act, RepresentativesBarton and Minge filed an amendment withthe Committee on Rules relating to budgetenforcement procedures and consisting of thetext of H.R. 2003.

In the furtherance of an agreement reachedbetween Representative Barton and the Re-publican Leadership on June 25, 1997, theCommittee on Rules has agreed to waive itsoriginal jurisdiction over H.R. 2003 and allowit to be considered by the House of Rep-resentatives without committee action.However, I believe the legislation is seri-ously flawed and I intend to oppose it.

To facilitate the orderly consideration ofH.R. 2003 and to uphold the terms of theagreement, it is my intention to report aclosed rule for this measure this week.

Sincerely,GERALD B. SOLOMON, Chairman.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Washington, DC, July 22, 1997.Hon. NEWT GINGRICH,Speaker of the House,Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I respectfully requestthat the Committee on the Budget be dis-charged from the further consideration ofH.R. 2003, the Budget Enforcement Act of1997.

Consistent with an agreement reached be-tween Representative Barton and the Repub-lican Leadership on June 25, 1997, the Com-mittee on the Budget has agreed to waive itsoriginal jurisdiction over H.R. 2003 and allowit to be considered by the House withoutcommittee action. Nevertheless, this legisla-tion is seriously flawed and I will oppose thisbill. Among various other problems, this billwould jeopardize the tax relief we haveworked so hard to secure for America’s fami-lies.

H.R. 2003 was introduced on June 20, 1997by Representatives Barton, Minge, and oth-ers, and was referred to the Committees onthe Budget, Rules, and Ways and Means.During the consideration of the rule for H.R.2015, the Balanced Budget Act, and H.R. 2014,the Taxpayer Relief Act, RepresentativesBarton and Minge filed an amendment with

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5589July 23, 1997the Committee on Rules relating to budgetenforcement procedures and consisting of thetext of H.R. 2003. It was at this point that thesponsors agreed to drop their proposedamendment to H.R. 2014, and the Committeeon the Budget agreed, in return, to waive itsjurisdiction.

Sincerely,JOHN R. KASICH, Chairman.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve thebalance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when the Committee onRules met in June to consider a rulefor the reconciliation bill, our col-leagues, the gentleman from Texas[Mr. BARTON] and the gentleman fromMinnesota [Mr. MINGE], appealed to thecommittee to make in order as anamendment to the reconciliation pack-age the text of their bill, H.R. 2003. Atthat time the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. SOLOMON] opposed includingH.R. 2003 as an amendment in the rule,but he did assure supporters of H.R.2003 that the rule would have an oppor-tunity to consider budget process re-form legislation during the 105th Con-gress.

The next day, during the debate onthe rule on reconciliation, the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. BARTON], an-nounced that he had reached an under-standing with the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. SOLOMON] that H.R. 2003 oran amended version of the bill would bebrought to the floor for an up or downvote no later than July 24. It is becauseof that agreement, Mr. Speaker, thatwe are here today considering the rule.

I should point out that the gen-tleman from New York, in acknowledg-ing that agreement, said that the con-sideration of H.R. 2003 in no way preju-dices the ability of those committeeswith jurisdiction over the budget proc-ess to consider other budget reformproposals at a later date.

As the ranking minority member ofthe Subcommittee on Legislative andBudget Process of the Committee onRules, I would like to appeal to the Re-publican majority to take advantage ofthe committee process if the House isto consider significant changes in thecongressional budget process. I wouldhope that in the future that significantproposals such as H.R. 2003 would beconsidered under regular order.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, thesponsors of H.R. 2003 were guaranteed avote on their proposal, and I am happyto see that the commitment is beingfulfilled. I do have a reservation aboutthe rule reported from the Committeeon Rules, since it is a closed rule pro-viding only for an up or down vote onH.R. 2003 as introduced and not in theimproved form that its supporters pro-posed to bring to the floor.

The gentleman from Texas and theother Members of the group pushingthis legislation have had an oppor-tunity to review and make changes totheir bill since June, and I think, atthe very least, if the House is to con-sider significant changes to the wayour budget process works, the House

might at least have the opportunity toconsider the best work product pos-sible.

It seems that the Committee onRules is now embarking on making inorder bills and amendments which arenot what the authors of their proposalsbring to the committee, and I wouldcaution my Republican colleagues thatto continue to operate in this mannermight prove disruptive to the regularorder of the House.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule dividesthe general debate time between thegentleman from Texas [Mr. BARTON]and an opponent of H.R. 2003. I want tomake clear the understanding that theDemocratic members of the Committeeon Rules have about the division of thetime, and if this is not what is in-tended, I would greatly appreciate mycolleague, the gentleman from Florida[Mr. GOSS], clarifying that understand-ing.

I am given to understand that thegentleman from Texas intends to yieldone-half of his time to the gentlemanfrom Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST. I yield to the