PERSONAL EXPLANATION
(House of Representatives - March 28, 1996)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H2986-H3029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 98, I was attending a White 
House bill-signing ceremony on the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  (For text of conference report deemed adopted pursuant to Resolution 
391, see proceedings of the House of March 21, 1996, at page H2640.)

[[Page H2987]]



             CONTRACT WITH AMERICA ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391, I call up 
the bill--H.R. 3136--to provide for enactment of the Senior Citizens' 
Right to Work Act of 1996, the Line-Item Veto Act, and the Small 
Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide for a 
permanent increase in the public debt limit, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 391, the amendments printed in House Report 104-500 
are adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3136, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 391, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 3136

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Contract with America 
     Advancement Act of 1996''.
        TITLE I--SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMITATION AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE OF TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens' Right to 
     Work Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASES IN MONTHLY EXEMPT AMOUNT FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   THE SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMIT.

       (a) Increase in Monthly Exempt Amount for Individuals Who 
     Have Attained Retirement Age.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, the exempt amount which is applicable to an 
     individual who has attained retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l)) before the close of the taxable year involved 
     shall be--
       ``(i) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1995 
     and before 1997, $1,041.66\2/3\,
       ``(ii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1996 
     and before 1998, $1,125.00,
       ``(iii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 
     1997 and before 1999, $1,208.33\1/3\,
       ``(iv) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1998 
     and before 2000, $1,291.66\2/3\,
       ``(v) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1999 
     and before 2001, $1,416.66\2/3\,
       ``(vi) for each month of any taxable year ending after 2000 
     and before 2002, $2,083.33\1/3\, and
       ``(vii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 
     2001 and before 2003, $2,500.00.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 203(f)(8)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     403(f)(8)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the taxable year ending after 1993 and 
     before 1995'' and inserting ``the taxable year ending after 
     2001 and before 2003 (with respect to individuals described 
     in subparagraph (D)) or the taxable year ending after 1993 
     and before 1995 (with respect to other individuals)''; and
       (B) in subclause (II), by striking ``for 1992'' and 
     inserting ``for 2000 (with respect to individuals described 
     in subparagraph (D)) or 1992 (with respect to other 
     individuals)''.
       (2) The second sentence of section 223(d)(4)(A) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``the exempt 
     amount under section 203(f)(8) which is applicable to 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof'' and 
     inserting the following: ``an amount equal to the exempt 
     amount which would be applicable under section 203(f)(8), to 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof, if section 
     102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 had not 
     been enacted''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after 1995.

     SEC. 103. CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEWS.

       (a) Authorization for Appropriations for Continuing 
     Disability Reviews.--Section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``Of the amounts authorized to be made 
     available out of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     under the preceding sentence, there are hereby authorized to 
     be made available from either or both of such Trust Funds for 
     continuing disability reviews--
       ``(i) for fiscal year 1996, $260,000,000;
       ``(ii) for fiscal year 1997, $360,000,000;
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 1998, $570,000,000;
       ``(iv) for fiscal year 1999, $720,000,000;
       ``(v) for fiscal year 2000, $720,000,000;
       ``(vi) for fiscal year 2001, $720,000,000; and
       ``(viii) for fiscal year 2002, $720,000,000.
     For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `continuing 
     disability review' means a review conducted pursuant to 
     section 221(i) and a review or disability eligibility 
     redetermination conducted to determine the continuing 
     disability and eligibility of a recipient of benefits under 
     the supplemental security income program under title XVI, 
     including any review or redetermination conducted pursuant to 
     section 207 or 208 of the Social Security Independence and 
     Program Improvements Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-296).''.
       (b) Adjustment to Discretionary Spending Limits.--Section 
     251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) Continuing disability reviews.--(i) Whenever a bill 
     or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 is enacted that 
     specifies an amount for continuing disability reviews under 
     the heading `Limitation on Administrative Expenses' for the 
     Social Security Administration, the adjustments for that 
     fiscal year shall be the additional new budget authority 
     provided in that Act for such reviews for that fiscal year 
     and the additional outlays flowing from such amounts, but 
     shall not exceed--
       ``(I) for fiscal year 1996, $15,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority and $60,000,000 in additional outlays;
       ``(II) for fiscal year 1997, $25,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority and $160,000,000 in additional outlays;
       ``(III) for fiscal year 1998, $145,000,000 in additional 
     new budget authority and $370,000,000 in additional outlays;
       ``(IV) for fiscal year 1999, $280,000,000 in additional new 
     budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays;
       ``(V) for fiscal year 2000, $317,500,000 in additional new 
     budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays;
       ``(VI) for fiscal year 2001, $317,500,000 in additional new 
     budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays; and
       ``(VII) for fiscal year 2002, $317,500,000 in additional 
     new budget authority and $520,000,000 in additional outlays.
       ``(ii) As used in this subparagraph--
       ``(I) the term `continuing disability reviews' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act;
       ``(II) the term `additional new budget authority' means new 
     budget authority provided for a fiscal year, in excess of 
     $100,000,000, for the Supplemental Security Income program 
     and specified to pay for the costs of continuing disability 
     reviews attributable to the Supplemental Security Income 
     program; and
       ``(III) the term `additional outlays' means outlays, in 
     excess of $200,000,000 in a fiscal year, flowing from the 
     amounts specified for continuing disability reviews under the 
     heading `Limitation on Administrative Expenses' for the 
     Social Security Administration, including outlays in that 
     fiscal year flowing from amounts specified in Acts enacted 
     for prior fiscal years (but not before 1996).''.
       (c) Budget Allocation Adjustment by Budget Committee.--
     Section 606 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Continuing Disability Review Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--(A) For fiscal year 1996, upon the 
     enactment of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 
     1996, the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives shall make the 
     adjustments referred to in subparagraph (C) to reflect 
     $15,000,000 in additional new budget authority and 
     $60,000,000 in additional outlays for continuing disability 
     reviews (as defined in section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act).
       ``(B) When the Committee on Appropriations reports an 
     appropriations measure for fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, or 2002 that specifies an amount for continuing 
     disability reviews under the heading `Limitation on 
     Administrative Expenses' for the Social Security 
     Administration, or when a conference committee submits a 
     conference report thereon, the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the Senate or House of Representatives 
     (whichever is appropriate) shall make the adjustments 
     referred to in subparagraph (C) to reflect the additional new 
     budget authority for continuing disability reviews provided 
     in that measure or conference report and the additional 
     outlays flowing from such amounts for continuing disability 
     reviews.
       ``(C) The adjustments referred to in this subparagraph 
     consist of adjustments to--
       ``(i) the discretionary spending limits for that fiscal 
     year as set forth in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget;
       ``(ii) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives for that 
     fiscal year under sections 302(a) and 602(a); and
       ``(iii) the appropriate budgetary aggregates for that 
     fiscal year in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       ``(D) The adjustments under this paragraph for any fiscal 
     year shall not exceed the levels set forth in section 
     251(b)(2)(H) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 for that fiscal year. The adjusted 
     discretionary spending limits, allocations, and aggregates 
     under this paragraph shall be considered the appropriate 
     limits, allocations, and aggregates for purposes of 
     congressional enforcement of this Act and concurrent budget 
     resolutions under this Act.
       ``(2) Reporting revised suballocations.--Following the 
     adjustments made under paragraph (1), the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to 
     sections 302(b) and 602(b) of this Act to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms 
     `continuing disability reviews', `additional new budget 
     authority', and `additional outlays' shall have the same 
     meanings as provided in section 251(b)(2)(H)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
       (d) Use of Funds and Reports.--

[[Page H2988]]

       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     ensure that funds made available for continuing disability 
     reviews (as defined in section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act) are used, to the greatest extent practicable, 
     to maximize the combined savings in the old-age, survivors, 
     and disability insurance, supplemental security income, 
     medicare, and medicaid programs.
       (2) Report.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     provide annually (at the conclusion of each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2002) to the Congress a report on 
     continuing disability reviews which includes--
       (A) the amount spent on continuing disability reviews in 
     the fiscal year covered by the report, and the number of 
     reviews conducted, by category of review;
       (B) the results of the continuing disability reviews in 
     terms of cessations of benefits or determinations of 
     continuing eligibility, by program; and
       (C) the estimated savings over the short-, medium-, and 
     long-term to the old-age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance, supplemental security income, medicare, and 
     medicaid programs from continuing disability reviews which 
     result in cessations of benefits and the estimated present 
     value of such savings.
       (e) Office of Chief Actuary in the Social Security 
     Administration.--
       (1) In general.--Section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 902) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:

                            ``Chief Actuary

       ``(c)(1) There shall be in the Administration a Chief 
     Actuary, who shall be appointed by, and in direct line of 
     authority to, the Commissioner. The Chief Actuary shall be 
     appointed from individuals who have demonstrated, by their 
     education and experience, superior expertise in the actuarial 
     sciences. The Chief Actuary shall serve as the chief 
     actuarial officer of the Administration, and shall exercise 
     such duties as are appropriate for the office of the Chief 
     Actuary and in accordance with professional standards of 
     actuarial independence. The Chief Actuary may be removed only 
     for cause.
       ``(2) The Chief Actuary shall be compensated at the highest 
     rate of basic pay for the Senior Executive Service under 
     section 5382(b) of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (2) Effective date of subsection.--The amendments made by 
     this subsection shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. ENTITLEMENT OF STEPCHILDREN TO CHILD'S INSURANCE 
                   BENEFITS BASED ON ACTUAL DEPENDENCY ON 
                   STEPPARENT SUPPORT.

       (a) Requirement of Actual Dependency for Future 
     Entitlements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(d)(4) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``was living 
     with or''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to benefits of individuals who 
     become entitled to such benefits for months after the third 
     month following the month in which this Act is enacted.
       (b) Termination of Child's Insurance Benefits Based on Work 
     Record of Stepparent Upon Natural Parent's Divorce From 
     Stepparent.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(d)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) if the benefits under this subsection are based on 
     the wages and self-employment income of a stepparent who is 
     subsequently divorced from such child's natural parent, the 
     month after the month in which such divorce becomes final.''.
       (2) Notification.--Section 202(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(d)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) For purposes of paragraph (1)(H)--
       ``(A) each stepparent shall notify the Commissioner of 
     Social Security of any divorce upon such divorce becoming 
     final; and
       ``(B) the Commissioner shall annually notify any stepparent 
     of the rule for termination described in paragraph (1)(H) and 
     of the requirement described in subparagraph (A).''.
       (3) Effective dates.--
       (A) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply with 
     respect to final divorces occurring after the third month 
     following the month in which this Act is enacted.
       (B) The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 105. DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS AND 
                   ALCOHOLICS.

       (a) Amendments Relating to Title II Disability Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 223(d)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) An individual shall not be considered to be disabled 
     for purposes of this title if alcoholism or drug addiction 
     would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor 
     material to the Commissioner's determination that the 
     individual is disabled.''.
       (2) Representative payee requirements.--
       (A) Section 205(j)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) In the case of an individual entitled to benefits 
     based on disability, the payment of such benefits shall be 
     made to a representative payee if the Commissioner of Social 
     Security determines that such payment would serve the 
     interest of the individual because the individual also has an 
     alcoholism or drug addiction condition (as determined by the 
     Commissioner) and the individual is incapable of managing 
     such benefits.''.
       (B) Section 205(j)(2)(C)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(2)(C)(v)) is amended by striking ``entitled to 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``under a 
     disability'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
       (C) Section 205(j)(2)(D)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(2)(D)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking all that follows 
     ``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in paragraph 
     (1)(B).''.
       (D) Section 205(j)(4)(A)(i)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(4)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``entitled to 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``under a 
     disability'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
       (3) Treatment referrals for individuals with an alcoholism 
     or drug addiction condition.--Section 222 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 422) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:

   ``Treatment Referrals for Individuals with an Alcoholism or Drug 
                          Addiction Condition

       ``(e) In the case of any individual whose benefits under 
     this title are paid to a representative payee pursuant to 
     section 205(j)(1)(B), the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall refer such individual to the appropriate State agency 
     administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment 
     services approved under subpart II of part B of title XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.).''.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 225 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 425(c)) is repealed.
       (5) Effective dates.--
       (A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (4) shall 
     apply to any individual who applies for, or whose claim is 
     finally adjudicated by the Commissioner of Social Security 
     with respect to, benefits under title II of the Social 
     Security Act based on disability on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and, in the case of any individual who 
     has applied for, and whose claim has been finally adjudicated 
     by the Commissioner with respect to, such benefits before 
     such date of enactment, such amendments shall apply only with 
     respect to such benefits for months beginning on or after 
     January 1, 1997.
       (B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall 
     apply with respect to benefits for which applications are 
     filed after the third month following the month in which this 
     Act is enacted.
       (C) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notify each 
     individual who is entitled to monthly insurance benefits 
     under title II of the Social Security Act based on disability 
     for the month in which this Act is enacted and whose 
     entitlement to such benefits would terminate by reason of the 
     amendments made by this subsection. If such an individual 
     reapplies for benefits under title II of such Act (as amended 
     by this Act) based on disability within 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall, not later than January 1, 1997, complete the 
     entitlement redetermination (including a new medical 
     determination) with respect to such individual pursuant to 
     the procedures of such title.
       (b) Amendments Relating to SSI Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(I) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an individual shall 
     not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title 
     if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this 
     subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the 
     Commissioner's determination that the individual is 
     disabled.''.
       (2) Representative payee requirements.--
       (A) Section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(II) In the case of an individual eligible for benefits 
     under this title by reason of disability, the payment of such 
     benefits shall be made to a representative payee if the 
     Commissioner of Social Security determines that such payment 
     would serve the interest of the individual because the 
     individual also has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition 
     (as determined by the Commissioner) and the individual is 
     incapable of managing such benefits.''.
       (B) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(vii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(B)(vii)) is amended by striking ``eligible for 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and 
     inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
       (C) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II)) is amended by striking all that 
     follows ``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii)(II).''.
       (D) Section 1631(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking ``eligible for 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and 
     inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
       (3) Treatment referrals for individuals with an alcoholism 
     or drug addiction condition.--Title XVI of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1381

[[Page H2989]]

     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


   ``TREATMENT REFERRALS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH AN ALCOHOLISM OR DRUG 
                          ADDICTION CONDITION

       ``Sec. 1636. In the case of any individual whose benefits 
     under this title are paid to a representative payee pursuant 
     to section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), the Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall refer such individual to the appropriate State 
     agency administering the State plan for substance abuse 
     treatment services approved under subpart II of part B of 
     title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 
     et seq.).''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 1611(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (B) Section 1634 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383c) is amended 
     by striking subsection (e).
       (5) Effective dates.--
       (A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (4) shall 
     apply to any individual who applies for, or whose claim is 
     finally adjudicated by the Commissioner of Social Security 
     with respect to, supplemental security income benefits under 
     title XVI of the Social Security Act based on disability on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act, and, in the 
     case of any individual who has applied for, and whose claim 
     has been finally adjudicated by the Commissioner with respect 
     to, such benefits before such date of enactment, such 
     amendments shall apply only with respect to such benefits for 
     months beginning on or after January 1, 1997.
       (B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall 
     apply with respect to supplemental security income benefits 
     under title XVI of the Social Security Act for which 
     applications are filed after the third month following the 
     month in which this Act is enacted.
       (C) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notify each 
     individual who is eligible for supplemental security income 
     benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act for the 
     month in which this Act is enacted and whose eligibility for 
     such benefits would terminate by reason of the amendments 
     made by this subsection. If such an individual reapplies for 
     supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of such 
     Act (as amended by this Act) within 120 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall, not later than January 1, 1997, complete the 
     eligibility redetermination (including a new medical 
     determination) with respect to such individual pursuant to 
     the procedures of such title.
       (D) For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase 
     ``supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of 
     the Social Security Act'' includes supplementary payments 
     pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration under 
     section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act and payments 
     pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(b) of 
     Public Law 93-66.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 201(c) of the Social 
     Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 425 note) is repealed.
       (d) Supplemental Funding for Alcohol and Substance Abuse 
     Treatment Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated to 
     supplement State and Tribal programs funded under section 
     1933 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33), 
     $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
       (2) Additional funds.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall be in addition to any funds otherwise appropriated 
     for allotments under section 1933 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33) and shall be allocated 
     pursuant to such section 1933.
       (3) Use of Funds.--A State or Tribal government receiving 
     an allotment under this subsection shall consider as 
     priorities, for purposes of expending funds allotted under 
     this subsection, activities relating to the treatment of the 
     abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

     SEC. 106. PILOT STUDY OF EFFICACY OF PROVIDING INDIVIDUALIZED 
                   INFORMATION TO RECIPIENTS OF OLD-AGE AND 
                   SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--During a 2-year period beginning as soon 
     as practicable in 1996, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall conduct a pilot study of the efficacy of providing 
     certain individualized information to recipients of monthly 
     insurance benefits under section 202 of the Social Security 
     Act, designed to promote better understanding of their 
     contributions and benefits under the social security system. 
     The study shall involve solely beneficiaries whose 
     entitlement to such benefits first occurred in or after 1984 
     and who have remained entitled to such benefits for a 
     continuous period of not less than 5 years. The number of 
     such recipients involved in the study shall be of sufficient 
     size to generate a statistically valid sample for purposes of 
     the study, but shall not exceed 600,000 beneficiaries.
       (b) Annualized Statements.--During the course of the study, 
     the Commissioner shall provide to each of the beneficiaries 
     involved in the study one annualized statement, setting forth 
     the following information:
       (1) an estimate of the aggregate wages and self-employment 
     income earned by the individual on whose wages and self-
     employment income the benefit is based, as shown on the 
     records of the Commissioner as of the end of the last 
     calendar year ending prior to the beneficiary's first month 
     of entitlement;
       (2) an estimate of the aggregate of the employee and self-
     employment contributions, and the aggregate of the employer 
     contributions (separately identified), made with respect to 
     the wages and self-employment income on which the benefit is 
     based, as shown on the records of the Commissioner as of the 
     end of the calendar year preceding the beneficiary's first 
     month of entitlement; and
       (3) an estimate of the total amount paid as benefits under 
     section 202 of the Social Security Act based on such wages 
     and self-employment income, as shown on the records of the 
     Commissioner as of the end of the last calendar year 
     preceding the issuance of the statement for which complete 
     information is available.
       (c) Inclusion With Matter Otherwise Distributed to 
     Beneficiaries.--The Commissioner shall ensure that reports 
     provided pursuant to this section are, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, included with other reports currently provided 
     to beneficiaries on an annual basis.
       (d) Report to the Congress.--The Commissioner shall report 
     to each House of the Congress regarding the results of the 
     pilot study conducted pursuant to this section not later than 
     60 days after the completion of such study.

     SEC. 107. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:


        ``PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS

       ``Sec. 1145. (a) In General.--No officer or employee of the 
     United States shall--
       ``(1) delay the deposit of any amount into (or delay the 
     credit of any amount to) any Federal fund or otherwise vary 
     from the normal terms, procedures, or timing for making such 
     deposits or credits,
       ``(2) refrain from the investment in public debt 
     obligations of amounts in any Federal fund, or
       ``(3) redeem prior to maturity amounts in any Federal fund 
     which are invested in public debt obligations for any purpose 
     other than the payment of benefits or administrative expenses 
     from such Federal fund.
       ``(b) Public Debt Obligation.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `public debt obligation' means any 
     obligation subject to the public debt limit established under 
     section 3101 of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(c) Federal Fund.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `Federal fund' means--
       ``(1) the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund;
       ``(2) the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund;
       ``(3) the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; and
       ``(4) the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust 
     Fund.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 108. PROFESSIONAL STAFF FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY 
                   BOARD.

       Section 703(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     903(i)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting after 
     ``Staff Director'' the following: ``, and three professional 
     staff members one of whom shall be appointed from among 
     individuals approved by the members of the Board who are not 
     members of the political party represented by the majority of 
     the Board,''.
                        TITLE II--LINE ITEM VETO

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Line Item Veto Act''.

     SEC. 202. LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Title X of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new part:

                        ``Part C--Line Item Veto


                       ``LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY

       ``Sec. 1021. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of parts A and B, and subject to the provisions of 
     this part, the President may, with respect to any bill or 
     joint resolution that has been signed into law pursuant to 
     Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United 
     States, cancel in whole--
       ``(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority;
       ``(2) any item of new direct spending; or
       ``(3) any limited tax benefit;
     if the President--
       ``(A) determines that such cancellation will--
       ``(i) reduce the Federal budget deficit;
       ``(ii) not impair any essential Government functions; and
       ``(iii) not harm the national interest; and
       ``(B) notifies the Congress of such cancellation by 
     transmitting a special message, in accordance with section 
     1022, within five calendar days (excluding Sundays) after the 
     enactment of the law providing the dollar amount of 
     discretionary budget authority, item of new direct spending, 
     or limited tax benefit that was canceled.
       ``(b) Identification of Cancellations.--In identifying 
     dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of 
     new direct spending, and limited tax benefits for 
     cancellation, the President shall--
       ``(1) consider the legislative history, construction, and 
     purposes of the law which contains such dollar amounts, 
     items, or benefits;

[[Page H2990]]

       ``(2) consider any specific sources of information 
     referenced in such law or, in the absence of specific sources 
     of information, the best available information; and
       ``(3) use the definitions contained in section 1026 in 
     applying this part to the specific provisions of such law.
       ``(c) Exception for Disapproval Bills.--The authority 
     granted by subsection (a) shall not apply to any dollar 
     amount of discretionary budget authority, item of new direct 
     spending, or limited tax benefit contained in any law that is 
     a disapproval bill as defined in section 1026.


                           ``SPECIAL MESSAGES

       ``Sec. 1022. (a) In General.--For each law from which a 
     cancellation has been made under this part, the President 
     shall transmit a single special message to the Congress.
       ``(b) Contents.--
       ``(1) The special message shall specify--
       ``(A) the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, 
     item of new direct spending, or limited tax benefit which has 
     been canceled, and provide a corresponding reference number 
     for each cancellation;
       ``(B) the determinations required under section 1021(a), 
     together with any supporting material;
       ``(C) the reasons for the cancellation;
       ``(D) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the cancellation;
       ``(E) all facts, circumstances and considerations relating 
     to or bearing upon the cancellation, and to the maximum 
     extent practicable, the estimated effect of the cancellation 
     upon the objects, purposes and programs for which the 
     canceled authority was provided; and
       ``(F) include the adjustments that will be made pursuant to 
     section 1024 to the discretionary spending limits under 
     section 601 and an evaluation of the effects of those 
     adjustments upon the sequestration procedures of section 251 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       ``(2) In the case of a cancellation of any dollar amount of 
     discretionary budget authority or item of new direct 
     spending, the special message shall also include, if 
     applicable-
       ``(A) any account, department, or establishment of the 
     Government for which such budget authority was to have been 
     available for obligation and the specific project or 
     governmental functions involved;
       ``(B) the specific States and congressional districts, if 
     any, affected by the cancellation; and
       ``(C) the total number of cancellations imposed during the 
     current session of Congress on States and congressional 
     districts identified in subparagraph (B).
       ``(c) Transmission of Special Messages to House and 
     Senate.--
       ``(1) The President shall transmit to the Congress each 
     special message under this part within five calendar days 
     (excluding Sundays) after enactment of the law to which the 
     cancellation applies. Each special message shall be 
     transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate on 
     the same calendar day. Such special message shall be 
     delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives if the 
     House is not in session, and to the Secretary of the Senate 
     if the Senate is not in session.
       ``(2) Any special message transmitted under this part shall 
     be printed in the first issue of the Federal Register 
     published after such transmittal.


              ``CANCELLATION EFFECTIVE UNLESS DISAPPROVED

       ``Sec. 1023. (a) In General.--The cancellation of any 
     dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item of new 
     direct spending, or limited tax benefit shall take effect 
     upon receipt in the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     of the special message notifying the Congress of the 
     cancellation. If a disapproval bill for such special message 
     is enacted into law, then all cancellations disapproved in 
     that law shall be null and void and any such dollar amount of 
     discretionary budget authority, item of new direct spending, 
     or limited tax benefit shall be effective as of the original 
     date provided in the law to which the cancellation applied.
       ``(b) Commensurate Reductions in Discretionary Budget 
     Authority.--Upon the cancellation of a dollar amount of 
     discretionary budget authority under subsection (a), the 
     total appropriation for each relevant account of which that 
     dollar amount is a part shall be simultaneously reduced by 
     the dollar amount of that cancellation.


                          ``DEFICIT REDUCTION

       ``Sec. 1024. (a) In General.--
       ``(1) Discretionary budget authority.--OMB shall, for each 
     dollar amount of discretionary budget authority and for each 
     item of new direct spending canceled from an appropriation 
     law under section 1021(a)--
       ``(A) reflect the reduction that results from such 
     cancellation in the estimates required by section 251(a)(7) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 in accordance with that Act, including an estimate of 
     the reduction of the budget authority and the reduction in 
     outlays flowing from such reduction of budget authority for 
     each outyear; and
       ``(B) include a reduction to the discretionary spending 
     limits for budget authority and outlays in accordance with 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     for each applicable fiscal year set forth in section 
     601(a)(2) by amounts equal to the amounts for each fiscal 
     year estimated pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Direct spending and limited tax benefits.--(A) OMB 
     shall, for each item of new direct spending or limited tax 
     benefit canceled from a law under section 1021(a), estimate 
     the deficit decrease caused by the cancellation of such item 
     or benefit in that law and include such estimate as a 
     separate entry in the report prepared pursuant to section 
     252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985.
       ``(B) OMB shall not include any change in the deficit 
     resulting from a cancellation of any item of new direct 
     spending or limited tax benefit, or the enactment of a 
     disapproval bill for any such cancellation, under this part 
     in the estimates and reports required by sections 252(b) and 
     254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       ``(b) Adjustments to Spending Limits.--After ten calendar 
     days (excluding Sundays) after the expiration of the time 
     period in section 1025(b)(1) for expedited congressional 
     consideration of a disapproval bill for a special message 
     containing a cancellation of discretionary budget authority, 
     OMB shall make the reduction included in subsection (a)(1)(B) 
     as part of the next sequester report required by section 254 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to a 
     cancellation if a disapproval bill or other law that 
     disapproves that cancellation is enacted into law prior to 10 
     calendar days (excluding Sundays) after the expiration of the 
     time period set forth in section 1025(b)(1).
       ``(d) Congressional Budget Office Estimates.--As soon as 
     practicable after the President makes a cancellation from a 
     law under section 1021(a), the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall provide the Committees on the Budget of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate with an estimate 
     of the reduction of the budget authority and the reduction in 
     outlays flowing from such reduction of budget authority for 
     each outyear.


      ``EXPEDITED CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF DISAPPROVAL BILLS

       ``Sec. 1025. (a) Receipt and Referral of Special Message.--
     Each special message transmitted under this part shall be 
     referred to the Committee on the Budget and the appropriate 
     committee or committees of the Senate and the Committee on 
     the Budget and the appropriate committee or committees of the 
     House of Representatives. Each such message shall be printed 
     as a document of the House of Representatives.
       ``(b) Time Period for Expedited Procedures.--
       ``(1) There shall be a congressional review period of 30 
     calendar days of session, beginning on the first calendar day 
     of session after the date on which the special message is 
     received in the House of Representatives and the Senate, 
     during which the procedures contained in this section shall 
     apply to both Houses of Congress.
       ``(2) In the House of Representatives the procedures set 
     forth in this section shall not apply after the end of the 
     period described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) If Congress adjourns at the end of a Congress prior 
     to the expiration of the period described in paragraph (1) 
     and a disapproval bill was then pending in either House of 
     Congress or a committee thereof (including a conference 
     committee of the two Houses of Congress), or was pending 
     before the President, a disapproval bill for the same special 
     message may be introduced within the first five calendar days 
     of session of the next Congress and shall be treated as a 
     disapproval bill under this part, and the time period 
     described in paragraph (1) shall commence on the day of 
     introduction of that disapproval bill.
       ``(c) Introduction of Disapproval Bills.--(1) In order for 
     a disapproval bill to be considered under the procedures set 
     forth in this section, the bill must meet the definition of a 
     disapproval bill and must be introduced no later than the 
     fifth calendar day of session following the beginning of the 
     period described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(2) In the case of a disapproval bill introduced in the 
     House of Representatives, such bill shall include in the 
     first blank space referred to in section 1026(6)(C) a list of 
     the reference numbers for all cancellations made by the 
     President in the special message to which such disapproval 
     bill relates.
       ``(d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--(1) 
     Any committee of the House of Representatives to which a 
     disapproval bill is referred shall report it without 
     amendment, and with or without recommendation, not later than 
     the seventh calendar day of session after the date of its 
     introduction. If any committee fails to report the bill 
     within that period, it is in order to move that the House 
     discharge the committee from further consideration of the 
     bill, except that such a motion may not be made after the 
     committee has reported a disapproval bill with respect to the 
     same special message. A motion to discharge may be made only 
     by a Member favoring the bill (but only at a time or place 
     designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule of the 
     day after the calendar day on which the Member offering the 
     motion announces to the House his intention to do so and the 
     form of the motion). The motion is highly privileged. Debate 
     thereon shall be limited to not more than one hour, the time 
     to be divided in the House equally between a proponent

[[Page H2991]]

     and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion 
     is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
       ``(2) After a disapproval bill is reported or a committee 
     has been discharged from further consideration, it is in 
     order to move that the House resolve into the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration 
     of the bill. If reported and the report has been available 
     for at least one calendar day, all points of order against 
     the bill and against consideration of the bill are waived. If 
     discharged, all points of order against the bill and against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The motion is highly 
     privileged. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. 
     During consideration of the bill in the Committee of the 
     Whole, the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     General debate shall proceed, shall be confined to the bill, 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by a proponent and an opponent of the bill. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Only one motion to rise shall be in order, except if offered 
     by the manager. No amendment to the bill is in order, except 
     any Member if supported by 49 other Members (a quorum being 
     present) may offer an amendment striking the reference number 
     or numbers of a cancellation or cancellations from the bill. 
     Consideration of the bill for amendment shall not exceed one 
     hour excluding time for recorded votes and quorum calls. No 
     amendment shall be subject to further amendment, except pro 
     forma amendments for the purposes of debate only. At the 
     conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion. A motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the 
     bill shall not be in order.
       ``(3) Appeals from decisions of the Chair regarding 
     application of the rules of the House of Representatives to 
     the procedure relating to a disapproval bill shall be decided 
     without debate.
       ``(4) It shall not be in order to consider under this 
     subsection more than one disapproval bill for the same 
     special message except for consideration of a similar Senate 
     bill (unless the House has already rejected a disapproval 
     bill for the same special message) or more than one motion to 
     discharge described in paragraph (1) with respect to a 
     disapproval bill for that special message.
       ``(e) Consideration in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Referral and reporting.--Any disapproval bill 
     introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the appropriate 
     committee or committees. A committee to which a disapproval 
     bill has been referred shall report the bill not later than 
     the seventh day of session following the date of introduction 
     of that bill. If any committee fails to report the bill 
     within that period, that committee shall be automatically 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill and the 
     bill shall be placed on the Calendar.
       ``(2) Disapproval bill from house.--When the Senate 
     receives from the House of Representatives a disapproval 
     bill, such bill shall not be referred to committee and shall 
     be placed on the Calendar.
       ``(3) Consideration of single disapproval bill.--After the 
     Senate has proceeded to the consideration of a disapproval 
     bill for a special message, then no other disapproval bill 
     originating in that same House relating to that same message 
     shall be subject to the procedures set forth in this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Amendments.--
       ``(A) Amendments in order.--The only amendments in order to 
     a disapproval bill are--
       ``(i) an amendment that strikes the reference number of a 
     cancellation from the disapproval bill; and
       ``(ii) an amendment that only inserts the reference number 
     of a cancellation included in the special message to which 
     the disapproval bill relates that is not already contained in 
     such bill.
       ``(B) Waiver or appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Senators, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate--
       ``(i) to waive or suspend this paragraph; or
       ``(ii) to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this paragraph.
       ``(5) Motion nondebatable.--A motion to proceed to 
     consideration of a disapproval bill under this subsection 
     shall not be debatable. It shall not be in order to move to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed was 
     adopted or rejected, although subsequent motions to proceed 
     may be made under this paragraph.
       ``(6) Limit on consideration.-- (A) After no more than 10 
     hours of consideration of a disapproval bill, the Senate 
     shall proceed, without intervening action or debate (except 
     as permitted under paragraph (9)), to vote on the final 
     disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not 
     then pending and to the exclusion of all motions, except a 
     motion to reconsider or to table.
       ``(B) A single motion to extend the time for consideration 
     under subparagraph (A) for no more than an additional five 
     hours is in order prior to the expiration of such time and 
     shall be decided without debate.
       ``(C) The time for debate on the disapproval bill shall be 
     equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority 
     Leader or their designees.
       ``(7) Debate on amendments.--Debate on any amendment to a 
     disapproval bill shall be limited to one hour, equally 
     divided and controlled by the Senator proposing the amendment 
     and the majority manager, unless the majority manager is in 
     favor of the amendment, in which case the minority manager 
     shall be in control of the time in opposition.
       ``(8) No motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a 
     disapproval bill shall not be in order.
       ``(9) Disposition of senate disapproval bill.--If the 
     Senate has read for the third time a disapproval bill that 
     originated in the Senate, then it shall be in order at any 
     time thereafter to move to proceed to the consideration of a 
     disapproval bill for the same special message received from 
     the House of Representatives and placed on the Calendar 
     pursuant to paragraph (2), strike all after the enacting 
     clause, substitute the text of the Senate disapproval bill, 
     agree to the Senate amendment, and vote on final disposition 
     of the House disapproval bill, all without any intervening 
     action or debate.
       ``(10) Consideration of house message.--Consideration in 
     the Senate of all motions, amendments, or appeals necessary 
     to dispose of a message from the House of Representatives on 
     a disapproval bill shall be limited to not more than four 
     hours. Debate on each motion or amendment shall be limited to 
     30 minutes. Debate on any appeal or point of order that is 
     submitted in connection with the disposition of the House 
     message shall be limited to 20 minutes. Any time for debate 
     shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     the majority manager, unless the majority manager is a 
     proponent of the motion, amendment, appeal, or point of 
     order, in which case the minority manager shall be in control 
     of the time in opposition.
       ``(f) Consideration in Conference--
       ``(1) Convening of conference.--In the case of disagreement 
     between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a 
     disapproval bill passed by both Houses, conferees should be 
     promptly appointed and a conference promptly convened, if 
     necessary.
       ``(2) House consideration.--(A) Notwithstanding any other 
     rule of the House of Representatives, it shall be in order to 
     consider the report of a committee of conference relating to 
     a disapproval bill provided such report has been available 
     for one calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal 
     holidays, unless the House is in session on such a day) and 
     the accompanying statement shall have been filed in the 
     House.
       ``(B) Debate in the House of Representatives on the 
     conference report and any amendments in disagreement on any 
     disapproval bill shall each be limited to not more than one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
     opponent. A motion to further 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.
       ``(3) Senate consideration.--Consideration in the Senate of 
     the conference report and any amendments in disagreement on a 
     disapproval bill shall be limited to not more than four hours 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to recommit the 
     conference report is not in order.
       ``(4) Limits on scope.--(A) When a disagreement to an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute has been referred to 
     a conference, the conferees shall report those cancellations 
     that were included in both the bill and the amendment, and 
     may report a cancellation included in either the bill or the 
     amendment, but shall not include any other matter.
       ``(B) When a disagreement on an amendment or amendments of 
     one House to the disapproval bill of the other House has been 
     referred to a committee of conference, the conferees shall 
     report those cancellations upon which both Houses agree and 
     may report any or all of those cancellations upon which there 
     is disagreement, but shall not include any other matter.


                             ``DEFINITIONS

       ``Sec. 1026. As used in this part:
       ``(1) Appropriation law.--The term `appropriation law' 
     means an Act referred to in section 105 of title 1, United 
     States Code, including any general or special appropriation 
     Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations, that has been signed into law 
     pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the 
     United States.
       ``(2) Calendar day.--The term `calendar day' means a 
     standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
       ``(3) Calendar days of session.--The term `calendar days of 
     session' shall mean only those days on which both Houses of 
     Congress are in session.
       ``(4) Cancel.--The term `cancel' or `cancellation' means--
       ``(A) with respect to any dollar amount of discretionary 
     budget authority, to rescind;
       ``(B) with respect to any item of new direct spending--
       ``(i) that is budget authority provided by law (other than 
     an appropriation law), to prevent such budget authority from 
     having legal force or effect;

[[Page H2992]]

       ``(ii) that is entitlement authority, to prevent the 
     specific legal obligation of the United States from having 
     legal force or effect; or
       ``(iii) through the food stamp program, to prevent the 
     specific provision of law that results in an increase in 
     budget authority or outlays for that program from having 
     legal force or effect; and
       ``(C) with respect to a limited tax benefit, to prevent the 
     specific provision of law that provides such benefit from 
     having legal force or effect.
       ``(5) Direct spending.--The term `direct spending' means--
       ``(A) budget authority provided by law (other than an 
     appropriation law);
       ``(B) entitlement authority; and
       ``(C) the food stamp program.
       ``(6) Disapproval bill.--The term `disapproval bill' means 
     a bill or joint resolution which only disapproves one or more 
     cancellations of dollar amounts of discretionary budget 
     authority, items of new direct spending, or limited tax 
     benefits in a special message transmitted by the President 
     under this part and--
       ``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A bill 
     disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President 
     on ________', the blank space being filled in with the date 
     of transmission of the relevant special message and the 
     public law number to which the message relates;
       ``(B) which does not have a preamble; and
       ``(C) which provides only the following after the enacting 
     clause: `That Congress disapproves of cancellations 
     ________', the blank space being filled in with a list by 
     reference number of one or more cancellations contained in 
     the President's special message, `as transmitted by the 
     President in a special message on ________', the blank space 
     being filled in with the appropriate date, `regarding 
     ________.', the blank space being filled in with the public 
     law number to which the special message relates.
       ``(7) Dollar amount of discretionary budget authority.--(A) 
     Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term `dollar 
     amount of discretionary budget authority' means the entire 
     dollar amount of budget authority--
       ``(i) specified in an appropriation law, or the entire 
     dollar amount of budget authority required to be allocated by 
     a specific proviso in an appropriation law for which a 
     specific dollar figure was not included;
       ``(ii) represented separately in any table, chart, or 
     explanatory text included in the statement of managers or the 
     governing committee report accompanying such law;
       ``(iii) required to be allocated for a specific program, 
     project, or activity in a law (other than an appropriation 
     law) that mandates the expenditure of budget authority from 
     accounts, programs, projects, or activities for which budget 
     authority is provided in an appropriation law;
       ``(iv) represented by the product of the estimated 
     procurement cost and the total quantity of items specified in 
     an appropriation law or included in the statement of managers 
     or the governing committee report accompanying such law; and
       ``(v) represented by the product of the estimated 
     procurement cost and the total quantity of items required to 
     be provided in a law (other than an appropriation law) that 
     mandates the expenditure of budget authority from accounts, 
     programs, projects, or activities for which budget authority 
     is provided in an appropriation law.
       ``(B) The term `dollar amount of discretionary budget 
     authority' does not include--
       ``(i) direct spending;
       ``(ii) budget authority in an appropriation law which funds 
     direct spending provided for in other law;
       ``(iii) any existing budget authority rescinded or canceled 
     in an appropriation law; or
       ``(iv) any restriction, condition, or limitation in an 
     appropriation law or the accompanying statement of managers 
     or committee reports on the expenditure of budget authority 
     for an account, program, project, or activity, or on 
     activities involving such expenditure.
       ``(8) Item of new direct spending.--The term `item of new 
     direct spending' means any specific provision of law that is 
     estimated to result in an increase in budget authority or 
     outlays for direct spending relative to the most recent 
     levels calculated pursuant to section 257 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(9) Limited tax benefit.--(A) The term `limited tax 
     benefit' means--
       ``(i) any revenue-losing provision which provides a Federal 
     tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or 
     fewer beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     in any fiscal year for which the provision is in effect; and
       ``(ii) any Federal tax provision which provides temporary 
     or permanent transitional relief for 10 or fewer 
     beneficiaries in any fiscal year from a change to the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(B) A provision shall not be treated as described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) if the effect of that provision is that--
       ``(i) all persons in the same industry or engaged in the 
     same type of activity receive the same treatment;
       ``(ii) all persons owning the same type of property, or 
     issuing the same type of investment, receive the same 
     treatment; or
       ``(iii) any difference in the treatment of persons is based 
     solely on--
       ``(I) in the case of businesses and associations, the size 
     or form of the business or association involved;
       ``(II) in the case of individuals, general demographic 
     conditions, such as income, marital status, number of 
     dependents, or tax return filing status;
       ``(III) the amount involved; or
       ``(IV) a generally-available election under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(C) A provision shall not be treated as described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) if--
       ``(i) it provides for the retention of prior law with 
     respect to all binding contracts or other legally enforceable 
     obligations in existence on a date contemporaneous with 
     congressional action specifying such date; or
       ``(ii) it is a technical correction to previously enacted 
     legislation that is estimated to have no revenue effect.
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) all businesses and associations which are related 
     within the meaning of sections 707(b) and 1563(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as a single 
     beneficiary;
       ``(ii) all qualified plans of an employer shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary;
       ``(iii) all holders of the same bond issue shall be treated 
     as a single beneficiary; and
       ``(iv) if a corporation, partnership, association, trust or 
     estate is the beneficiary of a provision, the shareholders of 
     the corporation, the partners of the partnership, the members 
     of the association, or the beneficiaries of the trust or 
     estate shall not also be treated as beneficiaries of such 
     provision.
       ``(E) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `revenue-
     losing provision' means any provision which results in a 
     reduction in Federal tax revenues for any one of the two 
     following periods--
       ``(i) the first fiscal year for which the provision is 
     effective; or
       ``(ii) the period of the 5 fiscal years beginning with the 
     first fiscal year for which the provision is effective.
       ``(F) The terms used in this paragraph shall have the same 
     meaning as those terms have generally in the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, unless otherwise expressly provided.
       ``(10) OMB.--The term `OMB' means the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget.


                ``IDENTIFICATION OF LIMITED TAX BENEFITS

       ``Sec. 1027. (a) Statement by Joint Tax Committee.--The 
     Joint Committee on Taxation shall review any revenue or 
     reconciliation bill or joint resolution which includes any 
     amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is being 
     prepared for filing by a committee of conference of the two 
     Houses, and shall identify whether such bill or joint 
     resolution contains any limited tax benefits. The Joint 
     Committee on Taxation shall provide to the committee of 
     conference a statement identifying any such limited tax 
     benefits or declaring that the bill or joint resolution does 
     not contain any limited tax benefits. Any such statement 
     shall be made available to any Member of Congress by the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation immediately upon request.
       ``(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other rule of the House of 
     Representatives or any rule or precedent of the Senate, any 
     revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution which 
     includes any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     reported by a committee of conference of the two Houses may 
     include, as a separate section of such bill or joint 
     resolution, the information contained in the statement of the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation, but only in the manner set forth 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) The separate section permitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall read as follows: `Section 1021(a)(3) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     shall ________ apply to ____________.', with the blank spaces 
     being filled in with --
       ``(A) in any case in which the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     identifies limited tax benefits in the statement required 
     under subsection (a), the word `only' in the first blank 
     space and a list of all of the specific provisions of the 
     bill or joint resolution identified by the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation in such statement in the second blank space; or
       ``(B) in any case in which the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     declares that there are no limited tax benefits in the 
     statement required under subsection (a), the word `not' in 
     the first blank space and the phrase `any provision of this 
     Act' in the second blank space.
       ``(c) President's Authority.--If any revenue or 
     reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law 
     pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the 
     United States--
       ``(1) with a separate section described in subsection 
     (b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in 
     section 1021(a)(3) only to cancel any limited tax benefit in 
     that law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
       ``(2) without a separate section described in subsection 
     (b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in 
     section 1021(a)(3) to cancel any limited tax benefit in that 
     law that meets the definition in section 1026.
       ``(d) Congressional Identifications of Limited Tax 
     Benefits.--There shall be no judicial review of the 
     congressional identification under subsections (a) and (b) of 
     a limited tax benefit in a conference report.''.

     SEC. 203. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Expedited Review.--
       (1) Any Member of Congress or any individual adversely 
     affected by part C of title X of

[[Page H2993]]

     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     may bring an action, in the United States District Court for 
     the District of Columbia, for declaratory judgment and 
     injunctive relief on the ground that any provision of this 
     part violates the Constitution.
       (2) A copy of any complaint in an action brought under 
     paragraph (1) shall be promptly delivered to the Secretary of 
     the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and 
     each House of Congress shall have the right to intervene in 
     such action.
       (3) Nothing in this section or in any other law shall 
     infringe upon the right of the House of Representatives to 
     intervene in an action brought under paragraph (1) without 
     the necessity of adopting a resolution to authorize such 
     intervention.
       (b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any order of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia which is issued pursuant 
     to an action brought under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) 
     shall be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court 
     of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a 
     notice of appeal filed within 10 calendar days after such 
     order is entered; and the jurisdictional statement shall be 
     filed within 30 calendar days after such order is entered. No 
     stay of an order issued pursuant to an action brought under 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be issued by a single 
     Justice of the Supreme Court.
       (c) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme 
     Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to 
     expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of 
     any matter brought under subsection (a).

     SEC. 204. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Short Titles.--Section 1(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by--
       (1) striking ``and'' before ``title X'' and inserting a 
     period;
       (2) inserting ``Parts A and B of'' before ``title X''; and
       (3) inserting at the end the following new sentence: ``Part 
     C of title X may be cited as the `Line Item Veto Act of 
     1996'.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in 
     section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                        ``Part C--Line Item Veto

``Sec. 1021. Line item veto authority.
``Sec. 1022. Special messages.
``Sec. 1023. Cancellation effective unless disapproved.
``Sec. 1024. Deficit reduction.
``Sec. 1025. Expedited congressional consideration of disapproval 
              bills.
``Sec. 1026. Definitions.
``Sec. 1027. Identification of limited tax benefits.''.

       (c) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Section 904(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``and 
     1017'' and inserting ``, 1017, 1025, and 1027''.

     SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       This Act and the amendments made by it shall take effect 
     and apply to measures enacted on the earlier of--
       (1) the day after the enactment into law, pursuant to 
     Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United 
     States, of an Act entitled ``An Act to provide for a seven-
     year plan for deficit reduction and achieve a balanced 
     Federal budget.''; or
       (2) January 1, 1997;
     and shall have no force or effect on or after January 1, 
     2005.
             TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FAIRNESS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory 
     Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) a vibrant and growing small business sector is critical 
     to creating jobs in a dynamic economy;
       (2) small businesses bear a disproportionate share of 
     regulatory costs and burdens;
       (3) fundamental changes that are needed in the regulatory 
     and enforcement culture of Federal agencies to make agencies 
     more responsive to small business can be made without 
     compromising the statutory missions of the agencies;
       (4) three of the top recommendations of the 1995 White 
     House Conference on Small Business involve reforms to the way 
     government regulations are developed and enforced, and 
     reductions in government paperwork requirements;
       (5) the requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States 
     Code, have too often been ignored by government agencies, 
     resulting in greater regulatory burdens on small entities 
     than necessitated by statute; and
       (6) small entities should be given the opportunity to seek 
     judicial review of agency actions required by chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 303. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to implement certain recommendations of the 1995 White 
     House Conference on Small Business regarding the development 
     and enforcement of Federal regulations;
       (2) to provide for judicial review of chapter 6 of title 5, 
     United States Code;
       (3) to encourage the effective participation of small 
     businesses in the Federal regulatory process;
       (4) to simplify the language of Federal regulations 
     affecting small businesses;
       (5) to develop more accessible sources of information on 
     regulatory and reporting requirements for small businesses;
       (6) to create a more cooperative regulatory environment 
     among agencies and small businesses that is less punitive and 
     more solution-oriented; and
       (7) to make Federal regulators more accountable for their 
     enforcement actions by providing small entities with a 
     meaningful opportunity for redress of excessive enforcement 
     activities.
            Subtitle A--Regulatory Compliance Simplification

      SEC. 311. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle--
       (1) the terms ``rule'' and ``small entity'' have the same 
     meanings as in section 601 of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``agency'' has the same meaning as in section 
     551 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (3) the term ``small entity compliance guide'' means a 
     document designated as such by an agency.

     SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE GUIDES.

       (a) Compliance Guide.--For each rule or group of related 
     rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final 
     regulatory flexibility analysis under section 604 of title 5, 
     United States Code, the agency shall publish one or more 
     guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
     and shall designate such publications as ``small entity 
     compliance guides''. The guides shall explain the actions a 
     small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or 
     group of rules. The agency shall, in its sole discretion, 
     taking into account the subject matter of the rule and the 
     language of relevant statutes, ensure that the guide is 
     written using sufficiently plain language likely to be 
     understood by affected small entities. Agencies may prepare 
     separate guides covering groups or classes of similarly 
     affected small entities, and may cooperate with associations 
     of small entities to develop and distribute such guides.
       (b) Comprehensive Source of Information.--Agencies shall 
     cooperate to make available to small entities through 
     comprehensive sources of information, the small entity 
     compliance guides and all other available information on 
     statutory and regulatory requirements affecting small 
     entities.
       (c) Limitation on Judicial Review.--An agency's small 
     entity compliance guide shall not be subject to judicial 
     review, except that in any civil or administrative action 
     against a small entity for a violation occurring after the 
     effective date of this section, the content of the small 
     entity compliance guide may be considered as evidence of the 
     reasonableness or appropriateness of any proposed fines, 
     penalties or damages.

     SEC. 313. INFORMAL SMALL ENTITY GUIDANCE.

       (a) General.--Whenever appropriate in the interest of 
     administering statutes and regulations within the 
     jurisdiction of an agency which regulates small entities, it 
     shall be the practice of the agency to answer inquiries by 
     small entities concerning information on, and advice about, 
     compliance with such statutes and regulations, interpreting 
     and applying the law to specific sets of facts supplied by 
     the small entity. In any civil or administrative action 
     against a small entity, guidance given by an agency applying 
     the law to facts provided by the small entity may be 
     considered as evidence of the reasonableness or 
     appropriateness of any proposed fines, penalties or damages 
     sought against such small entity.
       (b) Program.--Each agency regulating the activities of 
     small entities shall establish a program for responding to 
     such inquiries no later than 1 year after enactment of this 
     section, utilizing existing functions and personnel of the 
     agency to the extent practicable.
       (c) Reporting.--Each agency regulating the activities of 
     small business shall report to the Committee on Small 
     Business and Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Small Business and Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives no later than 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this section on the 
     scope of the agency's program, the number of small entities 
     using the program, and the achievements of the program to 
     assist small entity compliance with agency regulations.

     SEC. 314. SERVICES OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

       (a) Section 21(c)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (P), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (P) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(Q) providing information to small business concerns 
     regarding compliance with regulatory requirements; and
       ``(R) developing informational publications, establishing 
     resource centers of reference materials, and distributing 
     compliance guides published under section 312(a) of the Small 
     Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.''.
       (b) Nothing in this Act in any way affects or limits the 
     ability of other technical assistance or extension programs 
     to perform or continue to perform services related to 
     compliance assistance.

[[Page H2994]]

     SEC. 315. COOPERATION ON GUIDANCE.

       Agencies may, to the extent resources are available and 
     where appropriate, in cooperation with the states, develop 
     guides that fully integrate requirements of both Federal and 
     state regulations where regulations within an agency's area 
     of interest at the Federal and state levels impact small 
     entities. Where regulations vary among the states, separate 
     guides may be created for separate states in cooperation with 
     State agencies.

     SEC. 316. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle 
     shall take effect on the expiration of 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subtitle.
               Subtitle B--Regulatory Enforcement Reforms

      SEC. 321. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle--
       (1) the terms ``rule'' and ``small entity'' have the same 
     meanings as in section 601 of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``agency'' has the same meaning as in section 
     551 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (3) the term ``small entity compliance guide'' means a 
     document designated as such by an agency.

      SEC. 322. SMALL BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE ENFORCEMENT 
                   OMBUDSMAN.

       The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 30 as section 31; and
       (2) by inserting after section 29 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 30. OVERSIGHT OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term--
       ``(1) `Board' means a Regional Small Business Regulatory 
     Fairness Board established under subsection (c); and
       ``(2) `Ombudsman' means the Small Business and Agriculture 
     Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman designated under subsection 
     (b).
       ``(b) SBA Enforcement Ombudsman.--
       ``(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Administrator shall designate a Small 
     Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman, 
     who shall report directly to the Administrator, utilizing 
     personnel of the Small Business Administration to the extent 
     practicable. Other agencies shall assist the Ombudsman and 
     take actions as necessary to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this section. Nothing in this section is 
     intended to replace or diminish the activities of any 
     Ombudsman or similar office in any other agency.
       ``(2) The Ombudsman shall--
       ``(A) work with each agency with regulatory authority over 
     small businesses to ensure that small business concerns that 
     receive or are subject to an audit, on-site inspection, 
     compliance assistance effort, or other enforcement related 
     communication or contact by agency personnel are provided 
     with a means to comment on the enforcement activity conducted 
     by such personnel;
       ``(B) establish means to receive comments from small 
     business concerns regarding actions by agency employees 
     conducting compliance or enforcement activities with respect 
     to the small business concern, means to refer comments to the 
     Inspector General of the affected agency in the appropriate 
     circumstances, and otherwise seek to maintain the identity of 
     the person and small business concern making such comments on 
     a confidential basis to the same extent as employee 
     identities are protected under section 7 of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.App.);
       ``(C) based on substantiated comments received from small 
     business concerns and the Boards, annually report to Congress 
     and affected agencies evaluating the enforcement activities 
     of agency personnel including a rating of the responsiveness 
     to small business of the various regional and program offices 
     of each agency;
       ``(D) coordinate and report annually on the activities, 
     findings and recommendations of the Boards to the 
     Administrator and to the heads of affected agencies; and
       ``(E) provide the affected agency with an opportunity to 
     comment on draft reports prepared under subparagraph (C), and 
     include a section of the final report in which the affected 
     agency may make such comments as are not addressed by the 
     Ombudsman in revisions to the draft.
       ``(c) Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards.--
       ``(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Administrator shall establish a Small 
     Business Regulatory Fairness Board in each regional office of 
     the Small Business Administration.
       ``(2) Each Board established under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) meet at least annually to advise the Ombudsman on 
     matters of concern to small businesses relating to the 
     enforcement activities of agencies;
       ``(B) report to the Ombudsman on substantiated instances of 
     excessive enforcement actions of agencies against small 
     business concerns including any findings or recommendations 
     of the Board as to agency enforcement policy or practice; and
       ``(C) prior to publication, provide comment on the annual 
     report of the Ombudsman prepared under subsection (b).
       ``(3) Each Board shall consist of five members, who are 
     owners, operators, or officers of small business concerns, 
     appointed by the Administrator, after receiving the 
     recommendations of the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committees on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate. Not more than three of the 
     Board members shall be of the same political party. No member 
     shall be an officer or employee of the Federal Government, in 
     either the executive branch or the Congress.
       ``(4) Members of the Board shall serve at the pleasure of 
     the Administrator for terms of three years or less.
       ``(5) The Administrator shall select a chair from among the 
     members of the Board who shall serve at the pleasure of the 
     Administrator for not more than 1 year as chair.
       ``(6) A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum for the conduct of business, but a lesser 
     number may hold hearings.
       ``(d) Powers of the Boards.
       ``(1) The Board may hold such hearings and collect such 
     information as appropriate for carrying out this section.
       ``(2) The Board may use the United States mails in the same 
     manner and under the same conditions as other departments and 
     agencies of the Federal Government.
       ``(3) The Board may accept donations of services necessary 
     to conduct its business, provided that the donations and 
     their sources are disclosed by the Board.
       ``(4) Members of the Board shall serve without 
     compensation, provided that, members of the Board shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.''.

      SEC. 323. RIGHTS OF SMALL ENTITIES IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Each agency regulating the activities of 
     small entities shall establish a policy or program within 1 
     year of enactment of this section to provide for the 
     reduction, and under appropriate circumstances for the 
     waiver, of civil penalties for violations of a statutory or 
     regulatory requirement by a small entity. Under appropriate 
     circumstances, an agency may consider ability to pay in 
     determining penalty assessments on small entities.
       (b) Conditions and Exclusions.--Subject to the requirements 
     or limitations of other statutes, policies or programs 
     established under this section shall contain conditions or 
     exclusions which may include, but shall not be limited to--
       (1) requiring the small entity to correct the violation 
     within a reasonable correction period;
       (2) limiting the applicability to violations discovered 
     through participation by the small entity in a compliance 
     assistance or audit program operated or supported by the 
     agency or a state;
       (3) excluding small entities that have been subject to 
     multiple enforcement actions by the agency;
       (4) excluding violations involving willful or criminal 
     conduct;
       (5) excluding violations that pose serious health, safety 
     or environmental threats; and
       (6) requiring a good faith effort to comply with the law.
       (c) Reporting.--Agencies shall report to the Committee on 
     Small Business and Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business and Committee on 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives no later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this section on the 
     scope of their program or policy, the number of enforcement 
     actions against small entities that qualified or failed to 
     qualify for the program or policy, and the total amount of 
     penalty reductions and waivers.

     SEC. 324. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle 
     shall take effect on the expiration of 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subtitle.
           Subtitle C--Equal Access to Justice Act Amendments

     SEC. 331. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Section 504(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) If, in an adversary adjudication arising from an 
     agency action to enforce a party's compliance with a 
     statutory or regulatory requirement, the demand by the agency 
     is substantially in excess of the decision of the 
     adjudicative officer and is unreasonable when compared with 
     such decision, under the facts and circumstances of the case, 
     the adjudicative officer shall award to the party the fees 
     and other expenses related to defending against the excessive 
     demand, unless the party has committed a willful violation of 
     law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or special circumstances 
     make an award unjust. Fees and expenses awarded under this 
     paragraph shall be paid only as a consequence of 
     appropriations provided in advance.''.
       (b) Section 504(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``$75'' and inserting 
     '`$125'';
       (2) at the end of paragraph (1)(B), by inserting before the 
     semicolon ``or for purposes of subsection (a)(4), a small 
     entity as defined in section 601'';
       (3) at the end of paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``and'';
       (4) at the end of paragraph (1)(E), by striking the period 
     and inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page H2995]]

       (5) at the end of paragraph (1), by adding the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(F) `demand' means the express demand of the agency which 
     led to the adversary adjudication, but does not include a 
     recitation by the agency of the maximum statutory penalty (i) 
     in the administrative complaint, or (ii) elsewhere when 
     accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount.''.

     SEC. 332. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Section 2412(d)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) If, in a civil action brought by the United States, 
     or a proceeding for judicial review of an adversary 
     adjudication described in section 504(a)(4) of title 5 the 
     demand by the United States is substantially in excess of the 
     judgment finally obtained by the United States and is 
     unreasonable when compared with such judgment, under the 
     facts and circumstances of the case, the court shall award to 
     the party the fees and other expenses related to defending 
     against the excessive demand, unless the party has committed 
     a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, 
     or special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and 
     expenses awarded under this subparagraph shall be paid only 
     as a consequence of appropriations provided in advance.''.
       (b) Section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``$75'' and inserting 
     ``$125'';
       (2) at the end of paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the 
     semicolon ``or for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(D), a small 
     entity as defined in section 601 of title 5'';
       (3) at the end of paragraph (2)(G), by striking ``and'';
       (4) at the end of paragraph (2)(H), by striking the period 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (5) at the end of paragraph (2), by adding the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(I) `demand' means the express demand of the United 
     States which led to the adversary adjudication, but shall not 
     include a recitation of the maximum statutory penalty (i) in 
     the complaint, or (ii) elsewhere when accompanied by an 
     express demand for a lesser amount.''.

     SEC. 333. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by sections 331 and 332 shall apply to 
     civil actions and adversary adjudications commenced on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this subtitle.
           Subtitle D--Regulatory Flexibility Act Amendments

      SEC. 341. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSES.

       (a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
       (1) Section 603.--Section 603(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting after ``proposed rule'', the phrase ``, or 
     publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an 
     interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of 
     the United States''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end of the subsection, the 
     following new sentence: ``In the case of an interpretative 
     rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United 
     States, this chapter applies to interpretative rules 
     published in the Federal Register for codification in the 
     Code of Federal Regulations, but only to the extent that such 
     interpretative rules impose on small entities a collection of 
     information requirement.''.
       (2) Section 601.--Section 601 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
     (5), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the term `collection of information'--
       ``(A) means the obtaining, causing to be obtained, 
     soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or 
     the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, 
     regardless of form or format, calling for either--
       ``(i) answers to identical questions posed to, or identical 
     reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, 10 or 
     more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or 
     employees of the United States; or
       ``(ii) answers to questions posed to agencies, 
     instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which 
     are to be used for general statistical purposes; and
       ``(B) shall not include a collection of information 
     described under section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States 
     Code.
       ``(8) Recordkeeping requirement.--The term `recordkeeping 
     requirement' means a requirement imposed by an agency on 
     persons to maintain specified records.
       (b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Section 604 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 
     553 of this title, after being required by that section or 
     any other law to publish a general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking, or promulgates a final interpretative rule 
     involving the internal revenue laws of the United States as 
     described in section 603(a), the agency shall prepare a final 
     regulatory flexibility analysis. Each final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis shall contain--
       ``(1) a succinct statement of the need for, and objectives 
     of, the rule;
       ``(2) a summary of the significant issues raised by the 
     public comments in response to the initial regulatory 
     flexibility analysis, a summary of the assessment of the 
     agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in 
     the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
       ``(3) a description of and an estimate of the number of 
     small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation 
     of why no such estimate is available;
       ``(4) a description of the projected reporting, record 
     keeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, 
     including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
     will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
     professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
     or record; and
       ``(5) a description of the steps the agency has taken to 
     minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
     consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, 
     including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal 
     reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final 
     rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives 
     to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact 
     on small entities was rejected.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at the time'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``such analysis or a summary 
     thereof.''.

      SEC. 342. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       Section 611 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 611. Judicial review

       ``(a)(1) For any rule subject to this chapter, a small 
     entity that is adversely affected or aggrieved by final 
     agency action is entitled to judicial review of agency 
     compliance with the requirements of sections 601, 604, 
     605(b), 608(b), and 610 in accordance with chapter 7. Agency 
     compliance with sections 607 and 609(a) shall be judicially 
     reviewable in connection with judicial review of section 604.
       ``(2) Each court having jurisdiction to review such rule 
     for compliance with section 553, or under any other provision 
     of law, shall have jurisdiction to review any claims of 
     noncompliance with sections 601, 604, 605(b), 608(b), and 610 
     in accordance with chapter 7. Agency compliance with sections 
     607 and 609(a) shall be judicially reviewable in connection 
     with judicial review of section 604.
       ``(3)(A) A small entity may seek such review during the 
     period beginning on the date of final agency action and 
     ending one year later, except that where a provision of law 
     requires that an action challenging a final agency action be 
     commenced before the expiration of one year, such lesser 
     period shall apply to an action for judicial review under 
     this section.
       ``(B) In the case where an agency delays the issuance of a 
     final regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section 
     608(b) of this chapter, an action for judicial review under 
     this section shall be filed not later than--
       ``(i) one year after the date the analysis is made 
     available to the public, or
       ``(ii) where a provision of law requires that an action 
     challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the 
     expiration of the 1-year period, the number of days specified 
     in such provision of law that is after the date the analysis 
     is made available to the public.
       ``(4) In granting any relief in an action under this 
     section, the court shall order the agency to take corrective 
     action consistent with this chapter and chapter 7, including, 
     but not limited to--
       ``(A) remanding the rule to the agency, and
       ``(B) deferring the enforcement of the rule against small 
     entities unless the court finds that continued enforcement of 
     the rule is in the public interest.
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     limit the authority of any court to stay the effective date 
     of any rule or provision thereof under any other provision of 
     law or to grant any other relief in addition to the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(b) In an action for the judicial review of a rule, the 
     regulatory flexibility analysis for such rule, including an 
     analysis prepared or corrected pursuant to paragraph (a)(4), 
     shall constitute part of the entire record of agency action 
     in connection with such review.
       ``(c) Compliance or noncompliance by an agency with the 
     provisions of this chapter shall be subject to judicial 
     review only in accordance with this section.
       ``(d) Nothing in this section bars judicial review of any 
     other impact statement or similar analysis required by any 
     other law if judicial review of such statement or analysis is 
     otherwise permitted by law.''.

      SEC. 343. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Sections 603 and 604 of this title shall not apply to 
     any proposed or final rule if the head of the agency 
     certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
     significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
     entities. If the head of the agency makes a certification 
     under the preceding sentence, the agency shall publish such 
     certification in the Federal Register at the time of 
     publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the 
     rule or at the time of publication of the final rule, along 
     with a statement providing the factual basis for such 
     certification. The agency shall provide such certification 
     and statement to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
     Business Administration.''.
       (b) Section 612 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the committees on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the 
     Select Committee on Small Business of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives'' 
     and inserting ``the Committees on the Judiciary and Small

[[Page H2996]]

     Business of the Senate and House of Representatives''.
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``his views with respect 
     to the'' and inserting in lieu thereof, ``his or her views 
     with respect to compliance with this chapter, the adequacy of 
     the rulemaking record with respect to small entities and 
     the''.

      SEC. 344. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PANELS.

       (a) Small Business Outreach and Interagency Coordination.-- 
     Section 609 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
       (1) before ``techniques,'' by inserting ``the reasonable 
     use of'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), after ``entities'' by inserting 
     ``including soliciting and receiving comments over computer 
     networks'';
       (3) by designating the current text as subsection (a); and
       (4) by adding the following:
       ``(b) Prior to publication of an initial regulatory 
     flexibility analysis which a covered agency is required to 
     conduct by this chapter--
       ``(1) a covered agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and provide the 
     Chief Counsel with information on the potential impacts of 
     the proposed rule on small entities and the type of small 
     entities that might be affected;
       ``(2) not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of 
     the materials described in paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel 
     shall identify individuals representative of affected small 
     entities for the purpose of obtaining advice and 
     recommendations from those individuals about the potential 
     impacts of the proposed rule;
       ``(3) the agency shall convene a review panel for such rule 
     consisting wholly of full time Federal employees of the 
     office within the agency responsible for carrying out the 
     proposed rule, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
     Chief Counsel;
       ``(4) the panel shall review any material the agency has 
     prepared in connection with this chapter, including any draft 
     proposed rule, collect advice and recommendations of each 
     individual small entity representative identified by the 
     agency after consultation with the Chief Counsel, on issues 
     related to subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) 
     and 603(c);
       ``(5) not later than 60 days after the date a covered 
     agency convenes a review panel pursuant to paragraph (3), the 
     review panel shall report on the comments of the small entity 
     representatives and its findings as to issues related to 
     subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) and 603(c), 
     provided that such report shall be made public as part of the 
     rulemaking record; and
       ``(6) where appropriate, the agency shall modify the 
     proposed rule, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis or 
     the decision on whether an initial regulatory flexibility 
     analysis is required.
       ``(c) An agency may in its discretion apply subsection (b) 
     to rules that the agency intends to certify under subsection 
     605(b), but the agency believes may have a greater than de 
     minimis impact on a substantial number of small entities.
       ``(d) For purposed of this section, the term covered agency 
     means the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the 
     Department of Labor.
       ``(e) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy, in consultation with 
     the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2), and with the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, may waive 
     the requirements of subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) by 
     including in the rulemaking record a written finding, with 
     reasons therefor, that those requirements would not advance 
     the effective participation of small entities in the 
     rulemaking process. For purposes of this subsection, the 
     factors to be considered in making such a finding are as 
     follows:
       ``(1) In developing a proposed rule, the extent to which 
     the covered agency consulted with individuals representative 
     of affected small entities with respect to the potential 
     impacts of the rule and took such concerns into 
     consideration.
       ``(2) Special circumstances requiring prompt issuance of 
     the rule.
       ``(3) Whether the requirements of subsection (b) would 
     provide the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2) with 
     a competitive advantage relative to other small entities.''.
       (b) Small Business Advocacy Chairpersons.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of 
     each covered agency that has conducted a final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis shall designate a small business 
     advocacy chairperson using existing personnel to the extent 
     possible, to be responsible for implementing this section and 
     to act as permanent chair of the agency's review panels 
     established pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 345. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle shall become effective on the expiration of 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, except 
     that such amendments shall not apply to interpretative rules 
     for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was published prior 
     to the date of enactment.
                    Subtitle E--Congressional Review

     SEC. 351. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING.

       Title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     immediately after chapter 7 the following new chapter:

         ``CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING

``Sec.
``801. Congressional review.
``802. Congressional disapproval procedure.
``803. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial deadlines.
``804. Definitions.
``805. Judicial review.
``806. Applicability; severability.
``807. Exemption for monetary policy.
``808. Effective date of certain rules.

     ``Sec. 801. Congressional review

       ``(a)(1)(A) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal 
     agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of 
     the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report 
     containing--
       ``(i) a copy of the rule;
       ``(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule, 
     including whether it is a major rule; and
       ``(iii) the proposed effective date of the rule.
       ``(B) On the date of the submission of the report under 
     subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule 
     shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to 
     each House of Congress--
       ``(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the 
     rule, if any;
       ``(ii) the agency's actions relevant to sections 603, 604, 
     605, 607, and 609;
       ``(iii) the agency's actions relevant to sections 202, 203, 
     204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
       ``(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under 
     any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders.
       ``(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of each standing committee with 
     jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law 
     under which the rule is issued.
       ``(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on 
     each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction in each 
     House of the Congress by the end of 15 calendar days after 
     the submission or publication date as provided in section 
     802(b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall 
     include an assessment of the agency's compliance with 
     procedural steps required by paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller 
     General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller 
     General's report under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect on the latest of--
       ``(A) the later of the date occurring 60 days after the 
     date on which--
       ``(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so 
     published;
       ``(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of 
     disapproval described in section 802 relating to the rule, 
     and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the 
     earlier date--
       ``(i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to 
     override the veto of the President; or
       ``(ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which 
     the Congress received the veto and objections of the 
     President; or
       ``(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, 
     if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under section 802 is enacted).
       ``(4) Except for a major rule, a rule shall take effect as 
     otherwise provided by law after submission to Congress under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the effective date of 
     a rule shall not be delayed by operation of this chapter 
     beyond the date on which either House of Congress votes to 
     reject a joint resolution of disapproval under section 802.
       ``(b)(1) A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the 
     Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described 
     under section 802, of the rule.
       ``(2) A rule that does not take effect (or does not 
     continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in 
     substantially the same form, and a new rule that is 
     substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, 
     unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by 
     a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution 
     disapproving the original rule.
       ``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would 
     not take effect by reason of subsection (a)(3) may take 
     effect, if the President makes a determination under 
     paragraph (2) and submits written notice of such 
     determination to the Congress.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the 
     President by Executive Order that the rule should take effect 
     because such rule is--
       ``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       ``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
       ``(C) necessary for national security; or
       ``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
     international trade agreement.
       ``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under 
     this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under 
     section 802 or the effect of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under this section.

[[Page H2997]]

       ``(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review 
     otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any 
     rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date 
     occurring--
       ``(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or
       ``(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60 
     legislative days,

     before the date the Congress adjourns a session of Congress 
     through the date on which the same or succeeding Congress 
     first convenes its next session, section 802 shall apply to 
     such rule in the succeeding session of Congress.
       ``(2)(A) In applying section 802 for purposes of such 
     additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall 
     be treated as though--
       ``(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as 
     a rule that shall take effect) on--
       ``(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or
       ``(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the 
     15th legislative day,

     after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
       ``(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress 
     under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
       ``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to 
     affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report 
     shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
       ``(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take 
     effect as otherwise provided by law (including other 
     subsections of this section).
       ``(e)(1) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall 
     also apply to any major rule promulgated between March 1, 
     1996, and the date of the enactment of this chapter.
       ``(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional 
     review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated 
     as though--
       ``(A) such rule were published in the Federal Register on 
     the date of enactment of this chapter; and
       ``(B) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress 
     under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
       ``(3) The effectiveness of a rule described under paragraph 
     (1) shall be as otherwise provided by law, unless the rule is 
     made of no force or effect under section 802.
       ``(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no 
     force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution under 
     section 802 shall be treated as though such rule had never 
     taken effect.
       ``(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under section 802 respecting a rule, no court or 
     agency may infer any intent of the Congress from any action 
     or inaction of the Congress with regard to such rule, related 
     statute, or joint resolution of disapproval.

     ``Sec. 802. Congressional disapproval procedure

       ``(a) For purposes of this section, the term `joint 
     resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the 
     period beginning on the date on which the report referred to 
     in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60 
     days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is 
     adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress), 
     the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 
     `That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the ____ 
     relating to ____, and such rule shall have no force or 
     effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
       ``(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) 
     shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress 
     with jurisdiction.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `submission or 
     publication date' means the later of the date on which--
       ``(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     section 801(a)(1); or
       ``(B) the rule is published in the Federal Register, if so 
     published.
       ``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred 
     a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not 
     reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint 
     resolution) at the end of 20 calendar days after the 
     submission or publication date defined under subsection 
     (b)(2), such committee may be discharged from further 
     consideration of such joint resolution upon a petition 
     supported in writing by 30 Members of the Senate, and such 
     joint resolution shall be placed on the calendar.
       ``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint 
     resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is 
     discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration 
     of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at 
     any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion 
     to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all 
     points of order against the joint resolution (and against 
     consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion 
     is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or 
     to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 
     business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion 
     is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint 
     resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain 
     the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of.
       ``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on 
     all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, 
     shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be 
     divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the 
     joint resolution. A motion further to limit debate is in 
     order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to 
     postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution 
     is not in order.
       ``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion 
     of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection 
     (a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate 
     if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the 
     vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
       ``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to 
     the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure 
     relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a) 
     shall be decided without debate.
       ``(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection 
     (c) or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint 
     resolution respecting a rule--
       ``(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning 
     with the applicable submission or publication date, or
       ``(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was 
     submitted during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1), 
     after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the 
     15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress 
     first convenes.
       ``(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint 
     resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that 
     House receives from the other House a joint resolution 
     described in subsection (a), then the following procedures 
     shall apply:
       ``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee.
       ``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in 
     subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
       ``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if 
     no joint resolution had been received from the other House; 
     but
       ``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.
       ``(g) This section is enacted by Congress--
       ``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in 
     subsection (a), 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 (so 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.

     ``Sec. 803. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and 
       judicial deadlines

       ``(a) In the case of any deadline for, relating to, or 
     involving any rule which does not take effect (or the 
     effectiveness of which is terminated) because of enactment of 
     a joint resolution under section 802, that deadline is 
     extended until the date 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the joint resolution. Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to affect a deadline merely by reason of the 
     postponement of a rule's effective date under section 801(a).
       ``(b) The term `deadline' means any date certain for 
     fulfilling any obligation or exercising any authority 
     established by or under any Federal statute or regulation, or 
     by or under any court order implementing any Federal statute 
     or regulation.

     ``Sec. 804. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this chapter--
       ``(1) The term `Federal agency' means any agency as that 
     term is defined in section 551(1).
       ``(2) The term ``major rule'' means any rule that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has 
     resulted in or is likely to result in--
       ``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
     agencies, or geographic regions; or
       ``(C) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

     The term does not include any rule promulgated under the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the amendments made by 
     that Act.
       ``(3) The term `rule' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 551, except that such term does not include--
       ``(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a 
     rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages, 
     prices, services, or allowances therefor, corporate or 
     financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or 
     acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures 
     bearing on any of the foregoing;
       ``(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel; 
     or
       ``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or 
     practice that does not substantially affect the rights or 
     obligations of non-agency parties.

[[Page H2998]]

     ``Sec. 805. Judicial review

       ``No determination, finding, action, or omission under this 
     chapter shall be subject to judicial review.

     ``Sec. 806. Applicability; severability

       ``(a) This chapter shall apply notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(b) If any provision of this chapter or the application 
     of any provision of this chapter to any person or 
     circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such 
     provision to other persons or circumstances, and the 
     remainder of this chapter, shall not be affected thereby.

     ``Sec. 807. Exemption for monetary policy

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern 
     monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee.

     ``Sec. 808. Effective date of certain rules

       ``Notwithstanding section 801--
       ``(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, 
     or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, 
     recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting, 
     fishing, or camping, or
       ``(2) any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and 
     incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
     therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure 
     thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 
     public interest,

     shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency 
     promulgating the rule determines.''.

     SEC. 352. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 351 shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 353. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       The table of chapters for part I of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting immediately after the item 
     relating to chapter 7 the following:

``8. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking...................801''.
                      TITLE IV--PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

     SEC. 401. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained 
     in such subsection and inserting ``$5,500,000,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 391, as 
amended, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 
30 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter], the designee of the ranking minority member, will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].


                             general leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 3136.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3136, the 
Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996. This legislation 
contains the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, the Line-Item-Veto 
Act, the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and provides 
for a permanent increase in the public debt limit.
  Let me first compliment Chairmen Solomon, Clinger, and Bunning, and 
the rest of the line-item-veto conferees for their hard work. As the 
original author of line-item-veto legislation at the request of 
President Reagan, I am a true believer in the line-item veto. I know 
that it will help control spending and therefore aid us in obtaining a 
balanced budget. Accordingly, I welcome its inclusion in H.R. 3136.
  I am also proud that the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act will be 
included in this legislation. It is another of my career-long 
projects--one which I began working on with former Senator Goldwater in 
the early 1970's. As you know the House has already approved this 
measure by a large bipartisan vote of 411 to 4 last December 5. It 
would raise the earnings limit for seniors between the ages of 65 and 
69 to $30,000 by the year 2002, while fully preserving the long-term 
financial integrity of the Social Security trust funds. In fact, 
according to the Social Security actuaries, this bill improves the 
long-range solvency of the trust funds by a significant amount.
  This legislation is also strongly supported by a broad group of 
seniors' associations, including the AARP.
  We all know that the current earnings limit is too low and is nothing 
more than a tax on hard-working seniors.
  In our Contract With America, we promised to raise the earnings limit 
which discourages older workers from remaining in the work force and 
sharing their experience, knowledge, and skills with younger workers. 
Today, we take another important step in fulfilling that promise by 
providing relief from the onerous earnings limit to almost 1 million 
senior citizens who want or need to work. Again, I want to compliment 
Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim Bunning and Whip Denny 
Hastert for their outstanding efforts on this legislation. They have 
been untiring in their work on this project.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3136 also includes another important element of our 
Contract With America, regulatory relief for small business. This is a 
vital element of the bill, and I believe Chairman Hyde will be speaking 
on it in more detail.
  Finally, H.R. 3136 contains an increase in the permanent statutory 
debt ceiling from its current level of $4.9 trillion to $5.5 trillion. 
This amount should provide the Government with enough authority to 
operate through fiscal year 1997. This is the level including in the 
Balanced Budget Act, and sought by the Treasury Department. We have 
receive correspondence from Treasury expressing their support for the 
provision.
  This is a straightforward debt limit extension. As you know, we need 
to pass this legislation quickly as the current temporary limit expires 
tomorrow.
  Section 107 of this legislation codifies Congress' understanding that 
the Secretary of Treasury and other Federal officials are not 
authorized to use Social Security and Medicare funds for debt 
management purposes under any circumstances. Specifically, the 
Secretary of the Treasury and other Federal officials are required not 
to delay or otherwise underinvest incoming receipts to the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds. They are also required not to sell, 
redeem or otherwise disinvest securities, obligations or other assets 
of these trust funds except when necessary to provide for the payment 
of benefits and administrative expenses of these programs. The 
legislation applies to the following trust funds: Federal Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance [OASI] Trust Fund; Federal Hospital Insurance [HI] 
Trust Fund; and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance [SMI] Trust 
Fund.
  Since late October, the total amount of public debt obligations has 
been very close to the public debt limit. This has given rise to 
concerns that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds might be 
underinvested or disinvested for debt management purposes. While the 
administration has stated that it would not take such action, it is 
desirable to make clear in law that these funds could not be used for 
debt management purposes. It is the purpose of this legislation to 
clarify that any limitation on the public debt shall not be used as an 
excuse to avoid the full and timely investment of the Social Security 
trust funds. The Secretary, by law, is the managing trustee of these 
trust funds, and also the chief financial officer of the U.S. 
Government charged with its day-to-day cash management. As such, he 
shall take all necessary steps to ensure the full and timely investment 
of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  This bill seeks to assure that the Secretary of the Treasury and 
other Federal officials shall invest and disinvest Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds solely for the purposes of accounting for the 
income and disbursements of these programs. There are no circumstances 
envisioned under which the investments of the trust funds will not be 
made in a timely fashion in accordance with the normal investment 
practices of the Treasury, or under which the trust funds are drawn 
down prematurely for the purpose of avoiding limitations on the public 
debt or to make room under the statutory debt limit for the Secretary 
of the Treasury to issue new debt obligations in order to cover the 
expenditures of the Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill, which advances many important 
elements of our Contract With America, keeping our promises to the 
American

[[Page H2999]]

people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it 
today.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].


                          personal explanation

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was in my district yesterday on official 
business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on passage of H.R. 1833, the partial birth abortion bill; 
``yes'' on the passage of House Resolution 379; and ``yes'' on the 
passage of House Concurrent Resolution 102.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Jacobs].
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, this is a paradox day in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. We are going to raise the earnings limit under Social 
Security immediately from about $11,000 a year to $14,000 or so a year, 
I believe, and that will, on average, mean an income of about $20,000 
for a Social Security retiree. That is a very good thing to do.
  The paradox is, at the same time we are not going to be doing 
anything about the minimum wage. So what are we saying in essence? We 
are saying that the person who is retired and might work part time 
needs $24,000 a year, but the young person who is working every day of 
the week and working hard, maybe digging ditches, and has children to 
support can get by just fine on $8,840 a year. So I want to 
congratulate my colleagues on a sense of humor, I suppose, and a 
wonderful paradox.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3136.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support increasing the Social Security 
earnings limit. The current earnings limit of $11,280 hurts low-to-
moderate-income seniors who work out of necessity, not choice.
  Our Nation achieved unprecedented wealth and power because of the 
strong work ethic, self-reliance, and personal responsibility of 
today's senior citizens. They are the generation that built this 
Nation. To punish these productive, industrious seniors, who are the 
ones that made America great is absolutely absurd. All Americans lose 
when the earnings limit prevents us from employing the teaching and 
experience of our Nation's most precious resource.
  Let me also say I support wholeheartedly empowering small businesses 
to challenge burdensome regulations. In fact, observation of the 
catastrophic effects extraneous regulations have on small businesses 
and property owners was a major motivation for my seeking office.
  We should pass legislation to increase the Social Security earnings 
limit, and to empower small business, and I hope we do it soon. 
However,  I must vote against this measure today because I simply 
cannot support what would be a monumental mistake that would be made by 
this Congress if we hand over legislative powers to the president in 
the form of a line-item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I believe that a line item veto 
could be effective in eliminating wasteful port. However, I strongly 
believe that the consequences of shifting the delicate power balance of 
between the executive and legislative branches of government would far 
outweigh any advantages gained by this measure.
  Let me remind you of Alexander Hamilton's stern warning in Federalist 
No. 76 of why we must keep the powers given respectively to the 
legislature and executive branches of government separate:

       Without the one or the other the former would be unable to 
     defend himself against the depredations of that latter. (The 
     Legislature) might gradually be stripped of his authorities 
     by successive resolutions. . .
       And in one mode or the other, the legislative and executive 
     powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands.

  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution specifically gives the power of the 
purse to the people, which are represented in the Congress. Let us not 
give that sacred responsibility away to the President because we as a 
Congress do not have the discipline to make necessary spending cuts. 
The more powers we give to the executive to control the spending of 
taxpayer dollars, the less we will have of a representative government 
our Founding Fathers envisioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the Congress will regret the day 
that we surrender this tremendous power to the executive. I urge my 
colleagues to stand back and take a hard look at what we are doing 
today, and whether it is really worth giving away power that rightfully 
belongs to this, the people's House.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the highly respected chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3136, and 
particularly title III of that bill, the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
  Title III, as amended by the rule, is patterned after the provisions 
of S. 942, legislation sponsored by Senator Christopher Bond of 
Missouri, which passed the Senate on March 19 by the vote of 100 to 0. 
It would provide important regulatory relief for America's small 
businesses.
  This measure is vitally important to the small business community, 
which is particularly burdened by the effect of multiple, and many 
times conflicting, regulatory requirements. It should be viewed not as 
a total solution to all regulatory problems, but as a good first step 
of making rules more fair, more rational, and more carefully tailored 
to achieve the goal they are designed to accomplish.

  First, title III proposes important changes in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, allowing judicial review of certain aspects of that 
statute. The Regulatory Flexibility Act was first enacted in 1980. 
Under its terms, Federal agencies are directed to consider the special 
needs and concerns of small entities--that is, small businesses, local 
governments, farmers, and so forth, whenever they engage in a 
rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The agencies 
must then prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis of the 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the 
agency certifies that the proposed rule will not ``have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
  From the beginning, the problem with this law has been the lack of 
availability of a judicial reviews mechanism to enforce the purposes of 
the law. Right now, if agencies do not actually conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis or fail to follow the other procedures set down in 
the act, there is no sanction. Thus, under current law, the small 
business community has no remedy.
  Title III would cure this problem. In instances where an agency 
should have undertaken a regulatory flexibility analysis and did not, 
or where the agency needs to take corrective action with respect to a 
flexibility analysis that was prepared, small entities are authorized 
to seek judicial review within 1 year after final agency action. A 
court will then review the agency's action under the judicial review 
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The remedies that a 
court may order include remanding the rule back to the agency and 
deferring enforcement of the rule against small entities, pending 
agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  Another important aspect of title III is the congressional review 
procedure. This will allow Congress to review all proposed rules to 
determine whether or not they should take effect. Specifically, title 
III would allow Congress to postpone for 60 days the implementation of 
any major rule, generally defined as having an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more. The language allows the President to 
bypass the 60-day delay through the issuance of an Executive order, if 
the rule addresses an imminent threat to the public health or safety, 
or other emergency, or matters involving criminal law enforcement or 
national security.
  This legislation was developed by Senator Don Nickles and Senator 
Harry Reid. My Judiciary Committee staff has worked very closely with 
Senator Nickles' staff concerning the details of this provision.
  I think it is important to emphasize that this approach means that 
Congress must be prepared to take on greater responsibility in the 
rulemaking process. If during the review period, Congress identifies 
problems in a proposed major rule prior to its promulgation, we must be 
prepared to take action. Each standing committee will have to carefully 
monitor the regulatory activities of those agencies falling within 
their jurisdiction.
  Title III also includes a provision which will require Federal 
agencies to simplify forms and publish a plain English guide to help 
small businesses comply with Federal regulations. These compliance 
guides will not be subject to judicial review, but may be considered as 
evidence of the reasonableness of any proposed fines or penalties. 
Federal agencies would

[[Page H3000]]

also be directed to reduce or waive fines for small businesses in 
appropriate circumstances, if violations are corrected within a certain 
period.

  The proposal would also create an ombudsman within the Small Business 
Administration to gather information from small businesses about 
compliance and enforcement practices, and to work with the various 
agencies so as to respond to the concerns of small businesses regarding 
those practices.
  In addition, some important changes would be made in the Equal Access 
to Justice Act. The Equal Access to Justice Act [EAJA] currently 
provides that certain parties who prevail over the Federal Government 
in regulatory or court proceedings are entitled to an award in 
attorneys' fees and other expenses, unless the Government can 
demonstrate that its position was substantially justified or that 
special circumstances would make the award unjust. Eligible parties are 
individuals whose net worth does not exceed $2 million or businesses, 
organizations, associations, or units of local government with a net 
worth of no more than $7 million and no more than 500 employees. The 
act covers both adversary administrative proceedings and civil court 
actions.
  Title III proposes to change the Equal Access to Justice Act so as to 
make it easier for small businesses to recover their attorneys fees, if 
they have been subjected to excessive and unsustainable proposed 
penalties. It would amend the EAJA to create a new avenue for small 
entities to recover their attorneys fees in situations where the 
Government has instituted an administrative or civil action against a 
small entity to enforce a statutory or regulatory requirement. In these 
situations, the test for recovering attorneys' fees would become 
whether the final demand of the United States, prior to the initiation 
of the adjudication or civil action, was substantially in excess of the 
decision or judgment ultimately obtained and is unreasonable when 
compared to such decision or judgment. The important point here is that 
this legislation will level the playing field and make it far more 
likely that the United States will not seek excessive fines or 
penalties from small businesses and will be more likely to make fair 
settlement offers prior to proceeding with a formal regulatory 
enforcement action or before going to court to collect the civil fine 
or penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only described in very general terms today the 
substance of this important title. Because the language is the product 
of negotiation and compromise with the Senate, there is no formal 
legislative history available to explain its terms. To cure this 
deficiency, I will be inserting in the Congressional Record at a later 
date a document which will serve as the equivalent of a statement of 
managers. The same document will be submitted to the Record in the 
Senate. It is the committee's intent that that document carry the 
weight of legislative history regarding title III of H.R. 3136.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents an important and significant 
step toward removing unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulations from 
the backs of small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
3136 and look forward to its prompt passage and it being signed into 
law.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against H.R. 3136. My 
opposition stems not from a desire to prevent the needed increase in 
the debt limit, nor do I oppose the increase in the Social Security 
earnings limit contained in section 4, a proposition I supported with 
my vote in favor of H.R. 2684 last December.
  Rather, my objection, Mr. Speaker, is to the measure before us, which 
rests on my adamant opposition to the line-item veto provisions of 
section 3. The line-item veto is not about money as such. It is about 
power, specifically the balance of power between the executive and 
legislative branches of the Federal Government. This has nothing to do 
with Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with the contract 
except the contract we should be keeping with history that provided for 
our constitutional democracy to be able to sustain a balance between 
the executive and the legislative. It assumes that the executive 
branch, compared to the legislature, is inherently inclined to restrain 
spending. In fact, however, congressional appropriations have been 
lower than the amounts requested by the past three Presidents, Democrat 
and Republican alike. In denying Congress the authority to single out 
proposed rescissions for individual consideration, H.R. 3136 denies to 
the Congress an authority it grants to the President.
  If the President can unilaterally veto individual items in a single 
bill, why is Congress required to sustain or override those vetoes as 
an indivisible package? Why is Congress denied the authority, why are 
we denying ourselves the authority to judge each veto cast by the 
President? The upshot is more power for the executive branch, less for 
the legislature. By giving the President power to veto specific tax and 
appropriation items within a single bill, H.R. 3136 deprives the 
legislative branch of its share of its ability to strike a compromise 
with the executive.
  Mr. Speaker, it upsets the carefully calibrated balance between the 
legislative and executive branches of Government. That balance is what 
inclines our political system to compromise. Look at what is happening 
in the rest of the world where the executive has exclusive authority. I 
know I am going to be among the few votes that is going to be cast 
today. What I regret is, and this has happened before in our 
legislative history, there will be a few who will try to strike a 
balance to keep the power of the legislature against the executive, and 
one day there will be a Ph.D. writing a thesis about it, how we gave up 
our power, how we gave up the balance of power that exists in our 
democracy. Vote ``no'' on 3136.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time around will be the charm and 
the Social Security earnings limit will be passed. I want to thank 
Dennis Hastert, the deputy whip, and all the Republican Members of the 
100th Congress class, because this has been a class project for over 8 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has twice passed legislation to increase this 
onerous earnings limit in the 104th Congress, but lack of Senate action 
has kept this measure off the President's desk.
  I have a very good feeling that the tide has turned and our 
colleagues in the other body want to see this done as much as we do.
  I want to commend the House and Senate leadership for working with 
the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee to make the 
earnings limit increase part of the debt limit legislation.
  We have worked out a fair bill which makes good policy while actually 
improving the financial integrity of the Social Security trust funds.
  By increasing the earnings limit on working senior citizens, we are 
fulfilling the commitment we made in the Contract With America to bring 
economic relief to older workers.
  The earnings limit is a depression-era relic that has outlived its 
usefulness. Older workers have a great deal of knowledge and experience 
and our country needs the skills of experienced workers. The current 
limit is unrealistically low and sends the message that the Federal 
Government does not want seniors to continue working and contributing.
  Today's older Americans are living longer and healthier. They want to 
continue contributing to society, but they have to ask themselves if it 
is worth losing a good part of their Social Security benefits to do so.
  In most cases, the answer is ``No.'' By discouraging skilled older 
workers from working, we are forgoing one of society's greatest 
resources--experienced workers--a commodity every employer in the 
United States needs and values.
  The earnings limit is particularly harsh on lower to middle-income 
seniors who must work to supplement their Social Security benefits.
  Approximately 1 million working seniors have some or all of their 
benefits withheld because of the current earnings limit. These are not 
wealthy working seniors.
  These are seniors who do not have substantial pensions, investments 
or savings to supplement their Social Security checks.
  The earnings limit is nothing less than a tax on work. Seniors need 
and deserve some tax relief. I urge my colleagues to join me in making 
this long

[[Page H3001]]

overdue change to increase the earnings limit to $30,000.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the rule on this particular 
bill, not because I oppose the provisions of the bill in general but in 
specific, I have a problem with one provision on line-item veto.

                              {time}  1245

  I am a long-time supporter of the line-item veto. That is an issue 
which has not been partisan. It is an issue that the administration has 
asked for. I have supported it, and many on both sides of the aisle 
have supported it. The concern I have is that the line-item veto, under 
this bill, will not go into effect when we pass the bill. It will not 
go into effect until the end of the current term of this President. 
This President is a Democrat. This Congress is controlled by 
Republicans. That looks to the public like business as usual, like the 
Republicans are afraid to give a Democratic President the authority to 
veto specific items of pork.
  It is not like we do not have a problem ongoing with park-barrel 
spending. I have in my hand the Citizens Against Government Waste's 
1996 Congressional Pig Book. In that they identify $12.5 billion in 
just 8 appropriation bills that we passed in 1996, 8 of the 13, $12.5 
billion of pork.
  We passed in February 1995 through this House and in March through 
the other body a line-item veto bill. It took 6 months to even appoint 
conferees. Now we finally have the line-item veto coming to passage as 
part of this bill. It is too late for 1996 and these billions of 
dollars. Under this bill, it is too late for 1997 as well.
  Did they believe that, by passing line-item veto, there would only be 
Republican Presidents in the future? A Democratic President would not 
be eligible to use the line-item veto? Well, I am going to put into the 
record statements by the majority leader of the House, majority leader 
in the Senate and majority whip in the Senate. I am also going to put 
into the Record statements by the Committee on Rules chairman and other 
people on the floor of this House, saying we are not afraid to give it 
to a Democrat President. Here we are giving it, it is not just a 
Republican, we are giving it to him. No, you are not, not unless he 
wins reelection.
  So I simply believe that we ought to change one provision in this 
bill. Let us make line-item veto effective immediately upon enactment. 
If the President does not appropriately use it, then Congress can 
challenge the President. If the President does appropriately use it, we 
start cutting inappropriate spending today rather than waiting until 
after the 1997 fiscal year.
  So I would urge my colleagues to revise this bill, and I hope that we 
will have a motion to recommit with instructions to do so.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  As chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I am 
very pleased to rise in strong support of this measure. Two of the 
provisions in this measure were initiated in the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, and we are very proud they are part of this debt 
ceiling increase, because the line-item veto goes directly to the 
question of trying to hold down the debt, which we are now going to be 
forced to increase today.
  The previous speaker said that this was a provision that we should 
give the President right now. I would point out to the gentleman that 
this was a suggestion that the President himself made. Contrary to many 
of the Members on the other side of the aisle, this President, our 
President, supports the line-item veto and supports the date that has 
been selected.
  I would also point out he does have within his own power the key to 
unlock this provision and make it effective today, and that would be if 
he would agree to a balanced budget agreement. That is, as I say, in 
his power.
  We had a lot of trouble reconciling the many differences, frankly, 
that existed between the Senate and the House. Many in this room will 
remember how vast those differences were. But we were able, in the 
final analysis, to come to agreement. It was a bipartisan bicameral 
agreement. There are Members on both sides who support strongly the 
provision of the line-item veto. There are Members on both sides, 
frankly, who disagree with the line-item veto.
  The intent of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the 
President a tool, only a tool, to approach this question of deficit 
reduction. We have provided it not just for the appropriations process, 
which would only get at about 30 percent of the spending, we have also 
provided it for entitlements. We have provided it for targeted tax 
preferences which have been so abused in the past. The President is 
going to have a broad authority and broad ability to deal with the 
deficit and to deal with the debt, which has been spiraling out of 
control.
  I would point out it is important to note, consistent with the demand 
of both Houses in the conference, the conference report does not allow 
the President to strike any restriction, condition, or limitation on 
how funds may be spent. It is limited to whole dollar amounts. No 
policy can be changed as a result of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend who just 
mentioned that it was the President who asked for this, yes, the 
President asked for line-item veto. The President did not ask for line-
item veto to be until after the new year of 1997. It was offered by the 
majority leader, Senator Dole, to be available then, and the President 
said he wanted line-item veto, he would be willing to accept it and 
would accept it under those terms.
  It was not the President suggesting to delay line-item veto until 
1997. The President did accept it, but he has asked for it consistently 
to be effective immediately, and I have a letter so stating.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the Chair what I am about to do. I am 
going to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], 
then I am going to get out of the way and let the gentlewoman from New 
York use her 10 minutes.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand here today, on 
March 28, 1996, because it is a good day for the United States of 
America, it is a good day for the economic security of the United 
States of America, it is a good day for the financial markets of the 
United States of America, but most importantly it is a good day for the 
full faith and credit of the United States.
  We are raising the debt limit. We should have done it 5 months ago, 
but we are doing it today, and I am pleased that that is happening.
  There are those who say it did not matter if we did not raise it when 
we should have 5 months ago. I have to differ because I do not think 
there is any way of knowing if there were not interest rate increases 
or delaying schedules of auctions for securities, or, in fact, holding 
those actions for securities, or, in fact, holding those auctions when 
they should have.
  Having said that, I am glad today has come. There is one 
disappointment I have, though, in this bill. For 19 years, for 19 
years, the blind of this country have been joined with the elderly of 
this country, in being able to earn a certain amount of money over and 
above the Social Security earnings test. For some reason, the majority 
has decided to drop the blind from this joint relationship with those 
over 65. I do think it is too bad, because it really hurts the economic 
independence of the blind in this country.
  I certainly hope the majority in another time will look at this piece 
of legislation. I know the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] introduced 
it originally. I do hope once again we can couple the blind with those 
over 65 so economic independence can be theirs also.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a good day but it certainly is a strange 
one. I would never have thought I would be

[[Page H3002]]

part of a Congress of the United States that would unilaterally hand 
over major parts of its power to the executive department. To me, the 
strength of the Government of the United States, as written by the 
Founding Fathers, was the separation of powers, for each part of the 
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, well defined.
  With the action taken here in the House and in the Senate, we are 
unilaterally handing over to the President, whomever he or she may be, 
the right to veto all the work that we do here in Congress. Members of 
the House who have served under Governors, who have the right of line-
item veto, have told me that in many cases it is a genteel way to 
commit blackmail.
  Will we save money with the line-item veto? Well, consider this 
scenario: Let us say there is a President who is finding it very 
difficult, perhaps, to get reelected, and to get support from the 
members of his party who serve in the House or in the Senate. He would 
call in a delegation, perhaps mine, New York, which is rather large, 
and says to us, you are not supporting me, but I do notice here that in 
the bills that have been sent to me, that there is a very critical item 
under New York that has so much money. We are then, Members, confronted 
with either determining whether we are going to stand pat, face the 
President of the United States and tell him to forget about it, or 
allow him simply to line out what is necessary for the people that we 
represent.
  It is possible, is it not, that under those circumstances, that a 
delegation, a legislator, anyone, a leader would decide not to spend 
less money, Mr. Speaker, but could be induced to spend more? Indeed, it 
may be that such a President wants more than that has been asked for; 
the line-item veto does not say that in all cases that they will be 
going for less; it is entirely possible that a President will ask for 
more.
  I believe that this measure is unconstitutional, and I hope that it 
will be judged so. It is a tragedy to me that this has been added on to 
what is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have 
to come before us. The threat of fiscal default hanging over the United 
States of America has left a cloud over us that should never have been 
there in the first place. No nation ever talked about defaulting by 
choice until this time. To put, again, a sort of genteel from of 
blackmail, things that we normally would like to debate, strikes me as 
not the best way to do business.

  We have heard this conference report being bipartisan and the great 
support that you have had on both sides of the aisle. I think it is 
important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the conference that took 
place, took place only between House and Senate Republicans. No 
Democrats in the House or Senate were a part of that conference, and 
indeed the Democrats only saw the conference report after it was filed. 
Without any question, this side of the House had no impact whatever on 
that conference report.
  But in addition, this conference report goes much further than either 
the House bill or the Contract With America went. For example, it 
includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all other entitlement 
programs. We are now going to say to the President, ``If you do not 
like the increases that we have given in Social Security, get rid of 
them.'' We have put Medicare and Medicaid again up to the vagaries of 
the President without the ability of the people here to make the 
determination for the people who sent us, the 500,000 and more in each 
district who depend upon us to make those decisions, now you want to 
turn these decision over to the President.
  But there is one other piece that I was particularly involved in 
myself during the 100 days of the Contract With America when line-item 
veto was brought up. We were concerned over on our side about the fact 
that in many cases it is just as serious a drain on the Federal 
Treasury, in many cases, just as much a breach of faith, to use tax 
policy. And we put forth an amendment on this side to make sure that 
tax policy, giving benefits to certain groups, certain persons in the 
United States, would be looked at and scrutinized if the line-item veto 
indeed became law. That has been narrowed to the point of 
nonrecognition. Your tax-break friends are safe.
  What we are saying with this bill, this line-item veto today, is that 
the President may run through the bills in any way he or she likes, 
taking out anything or everything no matter the importance of it or 
what it may mean for the country. However, when it comes to tax 
benefits and tax policy, given to favorite constituents or constituent 
groups, nobody is going to be touching that. That is going to be 
sacred.

  Obviously, this bill is important for us to pass. Our fiscal 
responsibility and our fiscal reputation depend on it, and it is high 
time that the Social Security recipients receive some attention with 
the fact that they have been limited in the income that they can 
receive. Without jeopardizing their Social Security.
  But, Mr. Speaker, adding line-item veto to this is an abrogation of 
our power. It is an abrogation of the Constitution of the United 
States, and, frankly, I think that putting it on this bill says to the 
Nation basically we cannot be trusted. It is going to have to be 
somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to make these final decisions. 
That is a decision and a statement that I personally am not willing to 
make.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I would just like to briefly carry on the discussion of how much 
power has been transferred from Congress to the President. Article I, 
section 9 of the Constitution says that Congress shall control the 
purse strings. Article 1 of section VII of the Constitution says that 
Congress shall decide how deep we go into debt.
  I bring this chart to portray the authority and responsibility that 
Congress has now given away to the President of the United States. This 
pie chart represents the Federal budget for this coming year. The blue 
area represents the 52 percent of spending now in these welfare 
entitlement programs. The spending in those programs cannot be changed 
without the consent of the President.

                              {time}  1300

  It has been demonstrated now that also the administration has the 
authority to go deeper in debt without the consent of Congress.
  Transferring even greater power to the administrative branch, to the 
President, by saying that he will have the authority to line out, to 
veto anything in an appropriation bill, is a tremendous transfer of 
power.
  I served under three governors while in the State legislature in 
Michigan. Every one of those governors, liberal and conservative, used 
the leverage of the line-item veto to get spending they wanted. A lot 
of States have the line-item veto. Almost every one of those States 
also have a constitutional provision that says they have to have a 
balanced budget.
  In the State legislature, while the Governor says ``I want to shift 
priorities to what I think is important spending,'' either for 
political purposes or for philosophic goals. In the U.S. Government, 
where we do not have that kind of safeguard of a balanced budget, there 
is a danger of actually increasing spending and not decreasing spending 
as some presume.
  During the last three decades, a lot of us wished that the President 
had authority to veto spending we did not like. But we now have a 
Congress that is becoming more frugal, is being more conscientious of a 
balanced budget, and is more interested in cutting. Now we are saying 
we are going to take away responsibility from this Chamber, from this 
body and give it to the President. This is inconsistent with what our 
Founding Fathers thought was an appropriate balance. I think this 
legislation could have different results than some expect. I hope we do 
not see the dangers that could result from further disrupting the 
balance of power.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Wisconsin is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the line-item veto. It is a good measure, a 
measure

[[Page H3003]]

that the American people want. Why? They want the line-item veto 
because they are concerned about two things. They are concerned about 
pork barrel spending, and they are concerned about special interest tax 
breaks.
  This bill does a good job of taking care of the pork barrel spending, 
but it does a lousy job of taking care of special interest tax breaks. 
Why is that? It is because the people on the Republican side of the 
aisle like special interest tax breaks.
  We hear on the floor day after day proponents of tax reform from the 
Republican side say, ``Let's have a flat tax. Let's get rid of all 
these deductions. Let's get rid of all these loopholes.''
  Well, this was the opportunity to get rid of those. This bill was the 
opportunity to say we do not believe in special interest tax loopholes.
  But when they came up to bat, they swung and missed. They had no 
desire to give the President of the United States the ability to get 
rid of special interest tax loopholes. Why not? Because they are the 
gift that just keeps on giving. You can tuck them away into a revenue 
bill. You do not have to go through the appropriations process. It just 
keeps giving and giving and giving.
  The other irony of this entire debate is something that has happened 
to me over the last year and a half when I have gone back to my 
district and talked at Rotary lunches or Kiwanis lunches. They always 
talk about the Presidential line-item veto. I say, ``Mark my words: We 
will get it, but the Republican leadership will find a way to make sure 
that President Clinton does not have the authority to get rid of their 
pork barrel spending or their special interest tax loopholes in the 
104th Congress.''
  The provisions we are passing today do not give the President the 
ability to do it in this Congress.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this 
legislation, noting that 43 Governors have the line-item veto. Governor 
John Engler of Michigan has spoken out strongly that it does restrain 
unwise spending.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some supporters of line-item veto who may have 
despaired of ever getting it done. I must admit that there were days 
over the past 13 months when I had my doubts. Well, in the spirit of 
Sean Connery I am reminded ``never to say never.'' Today we fulfill a 
major plank in the Contract With America and implement a powerful 
budget-cutting tool. Title II of the bill before us is the text of our 
conference agreement on the line-item veto. It reflects countless hours 
of meetings and discussions--and an enormously good faith effort by all 
the conferees to ensure that this significant delegation of power from 
the Congress to the President is effective, workable and clearly 
defined. The conferees understood the magnitude of a delegation of 
authority of this kind. Quite simply, it is historic. Although some of 
our colleagues are fundamentally opposed to transferring such power to 
the President--any President--I firmly believe that this is a 
legitimate and necessary element of our battle to bring the Federal 
budget under control. We have been very careful in this conference 
report to carefully define our terms and the limitations that Congress 
is placing on the President's use of the line-item veto authority. The 
purpose of the line-item veto is to add to our arsenal of weapons 
against low-priority or unnecessary Federal spending. The goal is 
deficit reduction and we have ensured that the authority applies only 
to money being spent. Just as 43 Governors do today, the President, 
under the line-item veto, will have the ability to cancel individual 
items of spending and tax legislation if he believes doing so will help 
reduce the deficit. The burden of proof will then be on the Congress to 
come up with a two-thirds majority to override the President and spend 
the money over his objections. If the Congress is unable to muster that 
supermajority, then the funds are not spent and are applied to deficit 
reduction. The remarkable thing about this measure is that it 
fundamentally shifts the bias away from spending and toward saving the 
taxpayers money. That is a change that more than 70 percent of 
Americans have been asking for. Americans know that when huge spending 
and tax bills go to the President for his signature or veto, often 
individual items of less or even questionable national merit get 
carried into law by the greater good in the bill. That costs money--
lots of money--and that's what this tool is designed to control. Our 
conference built upon the House enhanced rescission model and, I 
believe, made it stronger by expanding the authority beyond 
appropriation measures to include new entitlements. As everyone knows, 
entitlement programs are a major culprit in our current budget 
imbalance--and the line-item veto should help to curb the creation of 
new programs that we can't afford. The conference report also allows 
the President to use his line-item veto to cancel limited tax 
benefits--provisions that are slipped into the Tax Code to benefit 100 
or fewer people at a cost to the taxpayers at large.
  Mr. Speaker, our staff has spent countless hours refining the 
language of this measure to ensure that we understand the repercussions 
of this delegation of authority. While we recognize the possibility for 
gaming of the system--by the Congress and the executive--we have built 
in important safeguards, including an 8-year sunset to allow us an 
opportunity to assess the line-item veto's effectiveness. Finally, Mr. 
Speaker, I point out to my colleagues that the President and the House 
leadership have agreed that the effective date of this new authority 
will be January 1, 1997, or enactment of a 7-year balanced budget, 
whichever comes sooner. This is a practical result that ensures 
sufficient time for the Executive and Congress to consider the 
measure's provisions and impact. In addition, this specified effective 
date allows the line-item veto to rise above short-term political 
realities. I think it is an enormously sensible decision and I applaud 
the President and our leaders for it.
  Mr. Speaker, last night the other body adopted this conference report 
by a 69-to-31 vote. It's time for this House to deliver a similar 
result.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip and tireless leader 
in the battle to achieve a line-item veto.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Contract With America 
Advancement Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  This bill proves the pundits wrong. The Contract With America is 
alive and well, and is working to better the lives of American 
families.
  I am especially pleased by two provisions in this legislation.
  The regulatory flexibility act is a small but significant step in the 
right direction for making commonsense changes to our regulatory 
system.
  This bill will bring much needed congressional accountability to the 
regulatory process. No Congress before this one has been willing to 
take responsibility for the way laws are implemented after they are 
signed.
  I believe it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to 
conduct oversight over agencies' promulgation of regulations, and am 
very pleased that this, the first Republican Congress in 40 years, is 
the one to make it happen.
  We also are finally enacting the line-item veto.
  When I was first elected to the House, I made the line-item veto one 
of my top priorities.
  This may not be a good week for pork, but it is a great week for the 
American taxpayer.
  Gone are the days, when Congresses inserted pork barrel projects to 
buy votes for their Members.
  With this line-item veto, we will make certain that those days of 
wasting taxpayer dollars are gone forever.
  I applaud my colleagues for their work on this legislation, and I 
urge them to send this bill to the President.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, but it is interesting how we got here. We got here today 
because the Republican leadership and the Democrat administration 
worked together to bring this bill forward. We have Democrats and 
Republicans working together, and when we work together it is amazing 
what we can accomplish.
  This bill is important. It does deal with the Social Security earning 
limitation. For too long senior citizens have been penalized for 
working with outrageously high tax rates. This bill corrects that.
  The line-item veto is an important bill. It helps to spotlight 
individual appropriations. We pass these omnibus bills where none of us 
really have an opportunity to study each and every provision in that 
legislation. The line-item veto will give us an opportunity

[[Page H3004]]

to look at these items individually and give the President a role as to 
whether they should become law.
  Small business regulatory relief, there are problems with small 
business. The oversight function of Congress should be to take a look 
at what regulations impact on small business, and this bill does that.
  Increasing the debt ceiling, we all know that we need to do that. We 
have already spent the money. We have got to honor our obligations.
  But it is interesting, why have we delayed for so long in bringing 
these bills forward? As I listened on the floor when we were 
considering other debt extension bills, the Republican leadership told 
us we could not consider it because we had to deal with deficit 
reduction. This bill does not deal with deficit reduction; it deals 
with extending the debt limit, as it should.
  Perhaps the only lesson that we can take out of this bill on deficit 
reduction and balancing the budget is if we use the process of 
Democrats and Republicans working together, then we can accomplish a 
balanced budget in this Congress. So I hope this legislation will spill 
over to other efforts between Democrats and Republicans to bring sound 
legislation to the floor, not in a vacuum by one party, but in 
cooperation by both parties, between the Congress and the President. If 
we do that, we will indeed serve our constituents well.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairwoman of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
chairman very much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3136. I support the 
increase in the senior citizens earning threshold, I support the line-
item veto, and particularly I support title III of this act, which is 
of enormous importance to this country's 21 million small businesses.
  Subtitle A of title III provides that agencies will provide plain 
English guides on new regulations for small business. Subtitle B 
provides for a regulatory ombudsman to assist small businesses in 
disputes with the Federal Government. These two subtitles, along with 
subtitle D, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, were among the very top 
priorities listed by the White House Conference on Small Business.
  I would like to focus for a moment on the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
which those interested in small business have been working for for many 
years. The Regulatory Flexibility Act has been on the books since 1980, 
and it provides that agencies must review all new rules and regulations 
for their specific impact on small business and then help mitigate that 
impact if it is extreme. But there is no enforcement mechanism, and the 
agencies have largely ignored it.
  This bill would provide for judicial review of the process, and thus 
put teeth in that Regulatory Flexibility Act. This judicial review of 
regulatory flexibility has strong bipartisan support. It has passed 
this House by a vote of 415 to 15, and last week it passed the Senate 
by 100 to 0.
  There are many good reasons to support this bill, but its value and 
importance to small business is the best reason to me and to the 
Committee on Small Business.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3136.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] who has been a champion for 
regulatory reform and also a leader in the line-item veto battle.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, small business is really the largest employer in our 
country. Small business in fact is the cornerstone of free enterprise. 
Today small business in the United States is being choked to death on 
mindless regulations, edicts and paperwork, and federally mandated 
compliance forms.
  When they write the epitaph of American small business, let me read 
for you what the tombstone is going to say: ``Here lies American small 
business, murdered by overregulation, murdered by taxation and 
litigation.''
  Today we cannot totally free the bondage of small business in 
America. What we can do today, however, is allow some regulatory 
flexibility, and that is what this legislation does.
  Today, through this legislation, small business will have a small but 
a fighting chance to challenge this crazy Federal bureaucratic 
rulemaking process. Today we can let Congress place a small check on 
the bureaucrats who have made a lifetime career of pumping out 
mindless, costly, and ineffective regulations.
  Today, if we are going to sink our Nation further into the rathole of 
debt, we can, through these regulatory reform measures, give small 
business, who employ our people, who pay our taxes, a small but 
fighting chance to dig us out of that rathole of debt.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] who has been a leader in this 
Congress on regulatory reform and an active participant on our 
committee, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, 
and thank him for his leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the line-item veto 
provision, the provision removing penalties from senior citizens, and 
title III, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996.
  What we have before us today is a small step toward reforming our 
regulatory process. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we get Government off 
of our backs, and back on our side in this country.
  Small businesses create 75 percent of the new jobs in this country, 
and I am particularly pleased to support the provisions of this bill 
that will allow small businesses to challenge agency decisions in court 
when they ignore the needs of small businesses and they write new 
regulations and create redtape.
  I am also very pleased with subtitle E that will bring agency 
regulations back to Congress for a vote. This part of the bill 
originated as a companion bill to my legislation, H.R. 450, the 
Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. And I was pleased to work with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Clinger, the gentleman from New 
York, Chairman Solomon, and the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hyde, 
along with Senator Don Nickles, to craft provisions that will be 
acceptable to both bodies and provide for meaningful congressional 
review of agency rulemaking actions.
  Our Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs has held field hearings around 
the country. We have heard from many people who are suffering because 
of Federal over-regulation. One person is Bruce Gohman, a small 
businessman in Minnesota, who says that he consciously limits his job 
creation to 50 employees. He will not hire more people because of the 
fear of being subjected to more redtape and more Government 
regulations.
  I say we need this reform to allow Mr. Gohman to create more good 
jobs and to pay higher wages to his employees so that we can get this 
economy going again.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support title III of this bill, and say it is 
time we have regulations that are smarter, safer, and provide more 
environmental protection, and less redtape.
  Mr. Speaker, this title is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation for small business growth and job creation that we will 
take up this year. In fact, it is the number one legislative priority 
for small business. Although this is not a comprehensive regulatory 
reform bill, this is an important first step in enacting needed reform 
for hard-working Americans in their struggle against the regulatory 
bureaucracy in Washington. Moreover, this title will hold the 
administration accountable for the impact of rules on all Americans.
  As I have said, I am especially pleased with the reforms in subtitles 
D and E, which address issues that I have been concerned about for a 
number of years. Subtitle D will strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act by allowing affected small businesses, local governments, and other 
small entities to challenge certain agency action and inaction in 
court. Currently, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal 
agencies issuing new rules to consider the impact the rules would have 
on small entities and prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless 
it certifies that the rule

[[Page H3005]]

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. In my experience working with Vice President Quayle on 
the President's Council on Competitiveness, I discovered that the 
Federal agencies often ignored the mandate of the act and refused to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The limited judicial review 
provided in subtitle D will serve as a needed check on agency behavior 
and help enforce the mandate of the act.
  Subtitle E will add a new chapter 8 to the Administrative Procedure 
Act, which will allow Congress to review agency rulemaking actions and 
determine whether Congress should pass joint resolutions under 
expedited procedures to overrule the rulemaking action. This subtitle 
originated almost one year ago as companion legislation to H.R. 450, 
the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, which was reported out of my 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and 
Regulatory Affairs. Although I would have liked this subtitle to go 
further, the bill we are going to pass today is a good start and can 
easily be amended in the future to provide for an expedited procedure 
to review and stop the most wrong-headed rulemaking proceedings before 
they waste more agency and private resources.
  As the principal House sponsor of the Congressional Review subtitle, 
I am very proud that this bill will soon be sent to the President 
again, and I hope signed by him this time. The House and Senate passed 
an earlier version of this subtitle as section 3006 of H.R. 2586, which 
was vetoed by the President last November. Before it becomes law, this 
bill will have passed the Senate at least four times and passed the 
House at least twice. In discussions with the Senate and House co-
sponsors this past week, we made several changes to the version of this 
subtitle that both bodies passed on November 9, 1995, and the version 
that the Senate passed last week. I will be happy to work with Chairman 
Hyde and Chairman Clinger on a document that we can insert in the 
Congressional Record at a later time to serve as the equivalent of a 
floor managers' statement. But because this bill will not likely have a 
conference report or managers' statement prior to passage, I offer the 
following brief explanation for some of the changes in the subtitle:


                     definition of a ``major rule''

  The version of subtitle E that we will pass today takes the 
definition of a ``major rule'' from President Reagan's Executive Order 
12291. Although President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 contains a 
definition of a significant rule that is purportedly as broad, several 
of the administration's significant rule determinations under Executive 
Order 12866 have been questionable. The administration's narrow 
interpretation of ``significant rulemaking action'' under Executive 
Order 12866 helped convince me that Congress should not adopt that 
definition. We intend the term ``major rule'' to be broadly construed, 
particularly the non-numerical factors contained in the new subsection 
804(2) (B) and (C).


 agency interpretive rules, general statements of policy, guidelines, 
 and statements of agency policy and procedure are covered by the bill

  All too often, agencies have attempted to circumvent the notice and 
comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by trying to 
give legal effect to general policy statements, guidelines, and agency 
policy and procedure manuals. Although agency interpretive rules, 
general statements of policy, guideline documents, and agency policy 
and procedure manuals may not be subject to the notice and comment 
provisions of section 553(c) of title 5, United States Code, these 
types of documents are covered under the congressional review 
provisions of the new chapter 8 of title 5.
  Under section 801(a), covered rules, with very few exceptions, may 
not go into effect until the relevant agency submits a copy of the rule 
and an accompanying report to both Houses of Congress. Interpretive 
rules, general statements of policy, and analogous agency policy 
guidelines are covered without qualification because they meet the 
definition of a ``rule'' borrowed from section 551 of title 5, and are 
not excluded from the definition of a rule.
  Pursuant to section 801(3)(C), a rule of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice, is only excluded if it ``does not substantially 
affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties.'' The focus of 
the test is not on the type of rule but on its effect on the rights or 
obligations of nonagency parties. A statement of agency procedure or 
practice with a truly minor, incidental effect on nonagency parties is 
excluded from the definition of a rule. Any other effect, whether 
direct or indirect, on the rights or obligations of nonagency parties 
is a substantial effect within the meaning of the exception. Thus, this 
exception should be read narrowly and resolved in favor of nonagency 
parties who can demonstrate that the rule will have a nontrivial effect 
on their rights or obligations.


the 60-day delay on the effectiveness of major rules and the emergency 
                       and good cause exceptions

  Two of the three previous Senate versions of this subtitle would have 
delayed the effective date of a major rule until at least 45 days after 
the relevant agency submitted the major rule and an accompanying report 
to Congress. One of the Senate versions and both House versions opted 
for at least a 60-day delay on the effectiveness of a major rule. The 
60-day period was selected to provide a more meaningful time within 
which Congress could act to pass a joint resolution before a major rule 
went into effect. Even though the expedited congressional procedures 
extend beyond this period--and some of the special House and Senate 
rules would never expire--it would be preferable for the Congress to 
act before outside parties are forced to comply with the rule.
  The subtitle provides an emergency exception in section 801(c) and a 
limited good cause exception in section 808(2) from the 60-day delay on 
the effectiveness of a major rule. Sections 801(c) and 808(2) should be 
narrowly construed, for any other reading of these exceptions would 
defeat the purpose of the delay period. The emergency exception in 
section 801(c) is only available pursuant to Executive order and after 
congressional notification that a specified situation exists. The good 
cause exception in section 808(2) is borrowed from the chapter 5 of the 
Administrative Procedure Act and applies only to rules which are exempt 
from notice and comment under section 553. Even in such cases, the 
agency should provide for the 60-day delay in the effective date unless 
such delay is clearly contrary to the public interest. This is because 
a determination under section 801(c) and 808(2) shall have no effect on 
the procedures under 802 to enact joint resolutions of disapproval 
respecting such rule, and it is contrary to the policy of this 
legislation that major rules take effect before Congress has had a 
meaningful opportunity to act on such joint resolutions.


 all executive agencies and so-called independent agencies are covered 
                              by the bill

  Congress intends this legislation to be comprehensive. It covers any 
agency or other entity that fits the ``Federal agency'' definition 
borrowed from 5 U.S.C. 551(1). That definition includes ``each 
authority of the government'' that is not expressly excluded by section 
551(1)(A)-(H). The objective is to cover each and every entity in the 
executive branch, whether it is a department, independent agency, 
independent establishment, or Government corporation, whether or not it 
conducts its rulemaking under section 553(c), and whether or not it is 
even covered by other provisions of title 5, U.S. Code. This definition 
of ``Federal agency'' is also intended to cover entities and 
establishments within the executive branch, such as the U.S. Postal 
Service, that are sometimes excluded from the definition of an agency 
in other parts of the U.S. Code. This is because Congress is enacting 
the congressional review legislation, in large part, as an exercise of 
its oversight and legislative responsibility over the executive branch. 
Regardless of the justification for excluding or granting independence 
for certain entities from the coverage of certain laws, that 
justification does not apply in this legislation, where Congress has an 
interest in exercising its constitutional oversight and legislative 
responsibility over all executive branch agencies and entities within 
its jurisdiction.
  Examples too numerous to mention abound in which Federal entities and 
agencies issue regulations and rules that impact businesses, small and 
large, as well as major segments of the American public, yet are not 
subject to the traditional 5 U.S.C. 553(c) rulemaking process. It is 
essential that this regulatory reform measure include every agency, 
authority, or entity that establishes policies affecting all or any 
segment of the general public. Where it is necessary, a few special 
adjustments have been made, such as the exclusion for the monetary 
policy activities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, rules of particular applicability, and rules of agency 
management and personnel. Where it is not necessary, no exemption is 
provided and the rule is that the entity's regulations are covered by 
this act. This is made clear by the provisions of the new section 806 
which states that the act applies notwithstanding any other provision 
of law.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which 
is urgently needed to avoid financial chaos. This is a compromise bill. 
In exchange for extending the debt limit, it provides a much needed 
procedure for reducing unnecessary pork barrel spending. That procedure 
is the line-item

[[Page H3006]]

veto. As cochairman of the congressional pork busters coalition, I 
strongly support the line-item veto as an essential tool to eliminate 
pork from appropriations bills. We have been battling pork for 6 years 
on the floor of this House, but not always successfully.
  This legislation provides much needed back up power to the Executive, 
allowing him to surgically slice out those items which do not deserve 
funding. Governors in 43 States, including California, already have 
this power and it has worked well. In our State of California, it has 
allowed our Governors to balance the budget. The House voted for a 
line-item veto over a year ago, and it has been bottled up in the 
Senate ever since. This is a golden opportunity to finally achieve our 
goal.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank one of the 
heroes of D-day for the opportunity, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons].
  When the new majority came to power 1 year ago, they promised the 
American people that Congress would change its ways, that we would live 
by all the laws of the land. Obviously one of the laws that we are not 
going to live by is the law of regulating false advertising. The very 
name of this bill is false advertising. It has nothing to do with the 
Contract With America. It has everything to do with raising the debt 
limit by $600 billion.
  The American people have consistently said that the biggest threat to 
this Nation is our horrible debt. It is a vulnerability greater than 
any other thing because it is eating up so much of our taxes. Just the 
interest on the national debt eats up more of our taxes than Medicare, 
than Medicaid, twice as much as Medicaid, the national defense, 10 
times more than food stamps, and 12 times more than welfare.
  In the 2 minutes that I have spoken to my colleagues, this Nation has 
spent $1 million on interest on the national debt, just in the past 2 
minutes.
  So what is their solution? We will borrow more money. We will pay 
more interest. That is crazy.
  Mr. Speaker, what do they do? Do they come to the floor and be honest 
with the American people and say we want to borrow some more money? No, 
they hide it. They hide it behind three bills that have already passed 
this body on their own merit, three bills that were just waiting for 
the U.S. Senate to agree to so they can become law.
  There is only one purpose for this bill. It is to borrow more money 
and to waste more money on interest on the national debt. Instead of 
the balanced budget that the American people were promised, this is 
just more borrow and spend. But it is not the first time since I have 
come to Congress that this has happened. Around November 7, 1989, I got 
a call from then-President Bush's White House. I was very new to this 
body. It said, can you do us a favor? Can you help us just one time 
temporarily raise the national debt? Just a temporary thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I had only been here a couple of weeks, and, my 
goodness, the President of the United States called. I was 
flabbergasted and honored, and, of course, Mr. President, you made 
perfect sense. We have got to do that. So the debt was raised from 2.87 
trillion to 3.1 trillion. That was not the end of it. In October 26, 
1990, this House came back, and H.R. 5838 permanently raised the debt 
ceiling from 3.1 to 4.1 trillion, just a couple years later. And then 
again on August 5, 1993, the House raised the debt ceiling from 4.1 to 
4.9.

  It is like saying, I am going to pay off my Visa card but first I am 
going to raise my debt limit on my visa card from 5,000 to 10,000. You 
do not ever get there.
  Today they are being asked to raise it from 4.9 to 5.5 trillion. 
Voting to raise the debt limit is a lot like an alcoholic saying, I am 
just going to have one more drink. A very good friend of mine from 
Pascagoula, MS, just came out of alcoholic rehab. He said, I would wake 
up every morning and I could always find an excuse for just one more 
drink. It is Thanksgiving. It is the week before Christmas. It is Mardi 
Gras. It is spring break. There is always one more excuse, one more 
drink. But until he work up and said, I am not going to have any more 
excuses, no more drinks, did he cure his problem.
  Mr. Speaker, America has to run out of excuses. We have got to quit 
borrowing. We cannot be for a balanced budget and then turn around and 
borrow $600 billion more. Let us draw the line today. Let us quit 
fooling the American people. Let us do what is right for this country.
  I thank the chairman and the great hero of D-Day. This gentleman, in 
case Members do not know, paratrooped into Normandy the night before 
the D-Day invasion. He is going to end his congressional career this 
year. He is a great American, and we are going to miss him.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and, of course, congratulate 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. We are going to miss him 
greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that we have gotten to the point where we 
have to rely on the line-item veto to turn the corner on the profligate 
spending that we have seen go on for decades. We have seen it 
successful in 38 States. I would simply like the Record to show that in 
our State of California, Governor Wilson has used the line-item veto 
354 times, saving our State's taxpayers nearly $800 million.
  I hope very much that we can proceed with passage of this very 
important measure.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Trafficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, let us see if this sounds right. Congress 
is frustrated with political pork. Congress has tried but Congress is 
fed up with pork-barrel spending.
  Congress honestly and desperately wants to stop all of this political 
pork. So Congress today, in both desperation and frustration, has 
decided that the only way to stop political pork is by giving the top 
politician in America, the President, the power to control political 
pork. Beam me up here. Let me remind everybody herein assembled, this 
is not Rotary. This is the Super Bowl of politics. And as we speak, 
White House staffers are not only watching and listening to what we say 
but how we say it, and they will be individually scoring your voting 
records to determine who may need some discipline.
  In America the people are supposed to govern. My problem with the 
line item veto is very simple. It is an awesome transfer of the 
people's power to one person who needs to get elected and then needs 34 
Senators in his hip pocket to run America. I guarantee not one of those 
34 Senators will ever worry about a line item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this today in the little bit of time I have, 
watch what we say from here on out, bite our tongues, mind our votes, 
mind our votes. And consider our votes politically, folks, because the 
White House is watching, the White House is keeping score.
  I think there is a better way to do this without transferring the 
power from the people to the White House. We are making the White House 
too powerful in the United States of America. I think we are 
endangering the freedom of our Nation and the power of our people.
  With that, I appreciate the gentleman for giving me the time. I want 
to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  I have been quite aggressive in some of my opposition at times to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, but never to the gentleman personally. I 
think the gentleman is an absolute great American. We are going to miss 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. I thank him for putting up 
with me. A lot of Members love him; I certainly do.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, as one who did not support the line item 
veto

[[Page H3007]]

because I do not think we can always count on the President of the 
United States, regardless of who he is, not to have some pettiness in 
his surroundings. But what I do not understand is there was a big push 
to do the line item veto early on over here, and I understand that this 
transaction will not go into place until 1997. Why would not the line 
item veto go and this President have the benefits of it for the next 7 
months?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by saying 
evidently the next President-elect will have the line item veto 
authority. It is amazing to me. I think it is unconstitutional, to 
start with, but I can remember a vote on a Btu tax, and the President 
wanted a Btu tax. I can remember that I happened to be the only 
Democrat in the Congress to speak out against that tax. With the line 
item veto it is not a very comfortable position. Maybe someone from 
that side might say the reason why.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We are 
going to miss him as well.
  Mr. CLINGER. Just to briefly say, Mr. Speaker, the President has 
agreed to the date. Obviously he is confident that he is in fact going 
to be reelected. I do not share that confidence, but he believes that 
he will be. Therefore, he is going to have that ability on January 1 in 
his view. The second thing is he has the key to provide the line-item 
veto to his use now upon signing a balanced budget agreement.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, I do not care if it is a Democrat 
or Republican, we are all Americans. We are expanding the power of the 
Presidency. That is not good for our country, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the deputy whip, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], a respected Member of the House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This is the third time the House of Representatives has taken up 
legislation to raise the earnings limit for working seniors in the 
104th Congress. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], who I think for 13 Congresses has worked to make this thing 
possible. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Bunning], who is the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, 
along with Members of the 100th class who have been working on this 
project for another 8 years. They have made this thing happen.
  Mr. Speaker, every time this legislation has come to the floor, it 
has passed with nearly a huge bipartisan margin. It is clear the House 
understands that working seniors, people who have to earn money by the 
sweat of their brow, usually people who have earned money by the sweat 
of their brow their whole life, who have not been able to accumulate 
huge savings or investments or those revenues or huge pensions, that 
today they have to go out and work to supplement their pension, to 
supplement their Social Security so that they can have a decent life, 
so that they can help put their grandchildren through college, so that 
they can maybe go on a vacation or somebody pay their property taxes or 
even buy a new car. These people are affected by this bill.

  I am proud to be able to stand here today and say that those seniors 
will be able to make more money this year without paying a tax on work. 
Those seniors will be able to eventually realize and take the earnings 
test up to $30,000 so that they can share the benefits of work that all 
Americans can have without paying a penalty or a tax on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wish we were able to raise the limits 
faster, as in earlier versions of this bill, but I am glad we have been 
able to come up with a plan that the President will sign. The seniors 
need and deserve relief. They have waited patiently for too long. In 
fact, I think those people who have to work by the sweat of their brow, 
people who work at McDonald's and flower shops and drive school buses 
need a break today, and we are going to give it to them.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, to my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is leaving this august body and has 
been a friend for a lot of years, everything that is in this bill that 
we are debating here today, as soon as the President signs it, will go 
into effect with the exception of the line-item veto; is that right?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this would also go into 
effect if the President would agree to the balanced-budget agreement.
  Mr. HEFNER. The balanced budget is not what we are voting on.

                              {time}  1330

  The gentleman is saying to the President, If you will do what we want 
to do, we'll give you the line-item veto this year, but everything else 
extending the debt limit and everything else will go into effect as 
soon as he signs it, with the exception of the line-item veto which we 
passed well over a year ago, in the first year of this new 
administration.
  Why? I do not understand why the gentleman would object to giving the 
President the line-item veto when he has got all these bills that are 
coming up for all the appropriations for everything that we authorized 
this year. Why would the gentleman want to wait until 1997, because we 
can save a lot of money? Would it have been possible until you make it 
effective as soon as the bill is signed?
  Mr. Speaker, just as among friends here, we are just friends here, 
would it not have been possible to put into this legislation that as 
soon as the President signs it, he will have the line-item veto? It is 
just that simple.
  Yes or no; could the gentleman have done it that way?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. That could be done but would kill the conference 
agreement and prevent enactment of the bill. The President has in fact 
agreed that the date should be January----
  Mr. HEFNER. That is not exactly true, Mr. Clinger.
  Mr. CLINGER. He did agree to that date; did he not?
  Mr. HEFNER. That was the best he could get, but I think he would 
agree, if it were made possible, that the line-item veto would go into 
effect as soon as he--I do not think he would have any problem with 
that.
  Mr. CLINGER. I would understand that, but if the gentleman would 
yield----
  Mr. HEFNER. But it could be done.
  Mr. CLINGER. There is a recognition that this is an effort to try 
to----
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time, the gentleman is 
setting the legislative agenda here. He could have made it in order 
that everything would go into effect, the line-item veto, everything, 
would have gone into effect. It could have been done; am I right or 
not? Yes or no?
  Mr. CLINGER. No. Not and pass the bill.
  Mr. HEFNER. I reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] has expired.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  The American farmer and the owner of a small business will be, at the 
end of this day, applauding the action of the Congress of the United 
States. For too long they have suffered the indignity of the Federal 
regulator, the agency head, who burdens the farmer and burdens the 
small business man with countless items of regulation that stifle 
business, it stifles the ability of the farmer to expand his operation 
and, thus, have created a situation in our country where entrepreneurs 
are afraid to hire new people, are afraid to embark on new enterprises.
  What we do here today in reforming regulatory flexibility is for the 
first time give a disaffected regulatee, if there be such a word, the 
right to appeal a burdensome regulation that has been foisted upon them 
by administrative agencies. That is a tremendous advance. Instead of 
having to sit back

[[Page H3008]]

and take whatever the agency says as a mandate, now for the first time 
we will have the farmer and the small business man say to himself and 
to the community, ``I'll be able to do something about this adverse 
regulation.''
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding this time to me, and let me just say I support this 
legislation in every aspect of it. I think many, many good things are 
happening here.
  I only have a minute and a half. I want to talk about the line-item 
veto. I think we need to look at the record first of all. Congress over 
the years, Republicans and Democrats, have spent a tremendous amount of 
money, more than, perhaps, we should have. I think this country really 
wants mechanisms in place which are going to help us reduce that burden 
of spending, and I believe strongly the line-item veto will do it.
  I have listened to this whole argument today because I am interested 
in it. As a Governor of a State for 8 years, I had the line-item veto. 
We are one of the 43 States which has it. I can tell my colleagues it 
was beneficial in my State from both points of view. It caused us to 
get into a room together and to discuss our budgets, and to make 
absolutely sure we were in concert with each other and we were doing 
what was in the best interests of the State. It was beneficial, without 
a doubt, to the budget process of the State of Delaware and I am 
convinced it will be beneficial to the budget process of the United 
States of America.
  We, in my judgment, are not yielding power to the President 
absolutely. We are allowing the President to become involved in the 
budget process. But we also retain the right to override vetoes in the 
circumstances in which they arise, and, quite frankly, if we have a 
President who for political reasons, ideological reasons, political 
reasons, whatever it may be, decides to make an issue of all of this, 
we have the ability to just as easily point out that it is politics and 
that it is wrong.
  What will really happen in this process is that we will be able to 
sit down together to negotiate things that are absolutely in the pork 
barrel category. They can be eliminated.
  So for the reasons of that and the rest of this very good bill I hope 
we will all support it here in a few minutes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the entire bill which 
includes the most important line-item veto. This 104th Congress has 
been hailed as a reform-minded Congress. We have made historic attempts 
to cut wasteful Government spending, scale back a bloated bureaucracy 
and, most importantly, balance our Federal budget.
  Although we have made great strides in these areas, our budgets still 
suffer from a deficit increasing plague which is known as pork barrel 
spending. In order to complete this goal of returning fiscal 
responsibility to the Federal Government, we must enact this measure.
  With the line-item veto the President can literally draw a line 
through any item in the Federal budget without having to veto the 
entire budget. No longer will taxpayer dollars be spent on wasteful 
projects. Instead, the stroke of a pen from the President will 
eliminate millions of dollars of pork from each year's budget.
  Furthermore, these savings will go into a lockbox, insuring that they 
be used for deficit reduction. In fact, the General Accounting Office, 
during the course of our discussion on this matter these last 2 years, 
has reported that they would have saved or been able to save over $70 
billion had the line-item veto been in effect.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here again with this opportunity to pass a 
historic measure. On a day when we are asking to support an increase in 
the debt limit to a record $5.5 billion, I think it is imperative and 
it is appropriate that we give the President this authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment at this time to commend our 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is 
retiring after this session. We said yesterday at the Committee on 
Rules, I will say it again, his work on the line-item veto bill, as 
well as many other numerous reform problems and perspectives, has been 
truly remarkable. Without his effort it would still be stuck in 
conference. We appreciate his work and ask everybody to vote for the 
line-item veto.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding time to a person that wants to talk against the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is increases the debt of the United 
States by $600 billion. At 5-percent interest, that is another $30 
billion a year that taxpayers will have to pay.
  I think it is unconscionable to continue to increase the debt without 
some guidelines, without some actual legislative change, at the very 
least some direction, to cut the spending of this overbloated 
Government. Borrowing has obscured the true siege of Government. 
Ultimately we must reach a balanced budget. This bill does not do that, 
and that is why I am voting against it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me rise in opposition to H.R. 3136 and mention that, 
along with some of the Members who have spoken earlier, I, too, believe 
that this bill will ultimately be found constitutional if it is signed 
into law. I also note with curiosity that we made the line-item veto 
effective after the term of the current President, Bill Clinton, has 
expired, and I think that is somewhat questionable as to why this 
Congress, under the new majority, has decided not to allow this 
particular President the opportunity to exercise a line-item veto if 
they are so adamantly for it.
  But let me mention something that I find extremely disturbing in this 
particular bill, which I cannot understand why it is even in here, and 
that is the whole issue of regulatory reform. I do not think there is 
any Member of Congress who does not wish to see regulatory flexibility 
and decreasing the burden on small business so long as we provide 
protections to the environment, to workers, and to people, our 
consumers.
  But, disturbingly, this bill commits an end run on the whole issue of 
regulatory reform because what it does is it provides, in this 
particular piece of legislation, through an amendment which I must say 
just came to us last night, which amends this bill which came to us 
just 2 days ago, the whole structure used to regulate agencies and 
regulate businesses out there in this country. How someone is supposed 
to be able to know what something that they got 2 days ago completely 
means and then now have to analyze something that they got last night, 
what that means is beyond me. But that is what we are being asked to 
swallow here through this end run.
  I am not sure what is wrong with this particular bill, but why was it 
that the majority was unwilling to let sunshine on these provisions so 
we could decide if, in fact, this is the true regulatory reform we 
need?
  Let me mention a couple of other things. This legislation creates, in 
the regulatory reform provisions, so-called regulatory fairness boards 
and advocacy panels. These are panels and boards that may be made up 
completely of a few favored small businesses that are trying to get 
themselves out of regulation, or can even include people who are 
exclusively major campaign contributors to particular Members of 
Congress or to particular parties. That I find very disturbing and very 
offensive.
  What else does this legislation do? It allows for private ex parte 
communications. In other words, all the interested parties are normally 
under the customary practice allowed to sit in, in an open and fair 
process on the record, on what should be done with regard to regulatory 
reform.
  This legislation says no, we do not need to do that any more. Let us 
go ahead and let a few people who happen to sit on these boards or 
advocacy panels have the opportunity to privately, without the other 
interested parties,

[[Page H3009]]

sit down with some of these agencies that are actually going to create 
these particular regulations or remove certain regulations. That is 
unfair to those businesses that are trying to do this in a fair and 
evenhanded manner.
  Finally, the environment is at stake. I would urge all the Members 
to, if they really have a chance, take a look at this. We are going to 
take out the penalties for environmental violations of law.
  As I was saying, take a look at the provisions that deal with 
environmental regulations. What we see here are waivers of penalties 
that would otherwise apply to those businesses that we find in 
violation of our clean water and safe drinking water standards. Any 
penalty for having violated those particular laws or regulations could 
be waived.
  Not only that, but because we have not had enough time to examine it, 
it is going to be fairly clear from some of the cryptic language that 
is used that they are going to create a nest egg for attorneys, because 
they will be able to go in there and take this to court because so much 
of this is so difficult to understand. What they are doing though is 
putting the consumer at risk, they are putting the environment at risk, 
and I would urge Members to take a close look for all the reasons I 
stated on why we should oppose H.R. 3136.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to very briefly respond to the gentleman who has just spoken.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation on small business regulatory reform 
should not come as a big surprise to him because it was debated 
thoroughly on the floor of this House last year. This was one of the 
elements of the Contract With America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have voted on the three main components of this bill 
already, regulatory reform, Social Security earnings limit increase, 
and a line-item veto. I think it is very important that the American 
public knows what this bill is. This is adding things to increase the 
debt for our children. What is wrong with the scenario to say that we 
are in debt, we have no figured-out way, no agreed-to plan, to solve 
that debt, and we are going back to the bank to borrow more money?

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, the Members of this Congress need to make sure they know 
what they are doing when they vote to extend the debt and jeopardize 
the future of our children by not doing the proper thing in terms of 
living within our means today.
  Consider what it will be like when we are 70 or 80 years of age. They 
will not, our children or grandchildren, be able to buy a home, will 
not be able to own a car. Their living standard will be halved, because 
we did the wrong thing today. This is not about the Social Security 
earnings limit, this is not about the line-item veto, this is not about 
reg reform, this is about not living up to the very hard responsibility 
that this Congress has been entrusted with, and that is not to live 
beyond our means.
  I would urge each Member of Congress to consider what the real issue 
is here today, and vote not to extend his debt limit until we have an 
agreement that gives us a plan on how we manage the finances of this 
country.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
legislation
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that I have absolutely no 
quarrel with the heart of this bill--the mechanism by which we enact a 
long-term increase in the debt limit. My colleagues know that I have 
long advocated decisive action on the debt limit and feel this step is 
long overdue. In addition, I have supported the increase in the Social 
Security earnings limit and believe the so-called reg flex provisions 
of this bill are an improvement on current law.
  My opposition is prompted exclusively by the inclusion of the line-
item veto in this must-pass legislation.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, enactment of the line-item veto is a 
serious error and a fundamental violation of the basic constitutional 
principal of the separation of powers. Every school child in America 
should have learned that. The separation of powers is a foundation of 
our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. David Samuels has it right in an Op-Ed piece in 
today's New York Times--``Line Item Lunacy.'' I include this article 
for the Record.
  David Samuels writes:

       The line-item veto would hand over unchecked power to a 
     minority President with minority support in Congress, while 
     opponents would have to muster two-thirds support to override 
     the President's veto.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 28, 1996]

                            Line-Item Lunacy

                           (By David Samuels)

       It's a scene from a paranoid thriller by Oliver Stone: A 
     mercurial billionaire, elected President with 35 percent of 
     the vote, holds America hostage to his minority agenda by 
     vetoing item after item in the Federal budget, in open breach 
     of the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the 
     Constitution. Impossible? Not anymore.
       With the announcement by Republican leaders that they plan 
     to pass the line-item veto this spring, the specter of a 
     Napoleonic Presidency has moved from the far reaches of poli-
     sci fiction, where it belongs, to the brink of political 
     possibility.
       At the moment, of course, a Presidential dictatorship is 
     far from the minds of the G.O.P. leadership and White House 
     Democrats, who hope that the line-item veto would encourage 
     the President to eliminate pork-barrel giveaways and 
     corporate tax breaks. But to see the measure as a simple 
     procedural reform is to ignore the forces that have 
     reconfigured the political landscape since it was first 
     proposed.
       Back in the 1980's, President Ronald Reagan ritually 
     invoked the line-item veto while shifting blame onto a 
     Democratic Congress for ballooning deficits. Part Republican 
     chestnut, part good-government gimmick, the line-item veto 
     became part of the Contract With America in 1994, and this 
     month rose to the top of the political agenda.
       What the calculations of Democrats and Republicans leave 
     out, however, is that the unsettled politics of the 1990's 
     bear little relation to the political order of the Reagan 
     years.
       In poll after poll, a majority of voters express a raging 
     disaffection with both major parties. With Ross Perot poised 
     to run in November, we could again elect our President with a 
     minority of the popular vote (in 1992, Mr. Clinton won with 
     43 percent). The line-item veto would hand over unchecked 
     power to a minority President with minority support in 
     Congress, while opponents would have to muster two-thirds 
     support to override the President's veto.
       By opening every line in the Federal budget to partisan 
     attack, the likely result would be a chaotic legislature more 
     susceptible than ever to obstructionists who could demand a 
     Presidential veto of Federal arts funding or sex education 
     programs or aid to Israel as the price of their political 
     support.
       And conservatives eager to cut Government waste would do 
     well to reflect on what a liberal minority might do to their 
     legislative hopes during a second Clinton term in office.
       Nor would the line-item veto likely result in more 
     responsible executive behavior. The zigs and zags of Bill 
     Clinton's first term in office give us a clear picture of the 
     post-partisan Presidency, in which the executive freelances 
     across the airwaves in pursuit of poll numbers regardless of 
     the political coherence of his message or the decaying ties 
     of party. With the adoption of the line-item veto, the 
     temptation for Presidents to strike out on their own would 
     surely grow.
       The specter of a President on horseback armed with coercive 
     powers might seem far away to those who dismissed Ross Perot 
     as a freak candidate in the last election. Yet no law states 
     that power-hungry billionaires must be possessed of Mr. 
     Perot's peculiar blend of personal qualities and doomed to 
     fail. Armed with the line-item veto, a future Ross Perrot--or 
     Steve Forbes--would be equipped with the means to reward and 
     punish members of the House and Senate by vetoing individual 
     budget items. This would enable an independent President to 
     build a coalition in Congress through a program of threats 
     and horse-trading that would make our present sorely flawed 
     system seem like a model of Ciceronian rectitude.
       President Clinton has promised to sign the line-item veto 
     when it reaches his desk. Between now and then, the historic 
     breach of our constitutional separation of powers that the 
     measure proposes should be subject to a vigorous public 
     debate. At the very least, we might reflect on how we intend 
     to govern ourselves at a time when the certainties of two-
     party politics are dissolving before our eyes.
  He's absolutely right! A pure line-item veto--and the version 
included in this bill is fairly pure--would give the President of the 
United States new dramatic, unilateral powers. It would mean that any 
President, operating in league with just 34 Senators, could strip any

[[Page H3010]]

spending proposal or tax cut, no matter their merit, from any bill. The 
consolidation of power in the executive branch is undeniable.
  As Mr. Samuels writes, ``By opening every line in the Federal budget 
to partisan attack, the likely result would be a chaotic legislature 
more susceptible than ever to obstructionists . . .''
  This line-item veto could easily take legislative horse-trading to a 
new level. While many President's have held out the prospect of pork in 
order to enlist votes for legislation they wanted--that is, the vote 
trading that occurred during the NAFTA debate--the line-item veto will 
allow a President to threaten specific programs and projects proposed 
by Members in order to compel their cooperation on other votes.
  This is a dramatic shift in the balance of power is an open 
invitation to any President to engage in legislative blackmail. For 
example, what if President Clinton decided to remove only Republican 
initiatives from a measure? If 34 Democratic Senators uphold his 
action, the President wins.
  We all recognize the genius of the framers of our U.S. Constitution. 
They did not want a king or a dictator or an oligarchy--a small group 
ruling the Nation. So they wrote the Constitution based on a delicate 
system of checks and balances and the separation of powers doctrine.
  I have supported a so-called expedited rescissions process which will 
maintain the delicate balance of powers by allowing the President to 
reject spending and tax changes with a majority vote of Congress.
  I am convinced, however, that the Supreme Court of the United States 
will save this Congress from itself. This proposed violates the 
foundation of our Constitution and will be overturned at its first 
judicial challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that inclusion of this line-item veto will 
force me to vote ``no'' on this vital legislation.
  Many of my colleagues know that I have been a strong voice urging 
quick passage of a long-term debt limit extension. I spoke out on this 
issue as early as November 15 in a letter to Speaker gingrich and again 
in letters in late January, in late February, and early March.
  And today--finally, finally--we are doing the right thing.
  For too long, many in this Congress threatened to use this long-term 
debt limit extension bill as leverage in the effort to enact 
entitlement reform or other legislation.
  That was playing with fire.
  When it comes to our financial obligations, the stakes are simply too 
high. In its 219-year history, the United States has never defaulted on 
its financial obligations. The full faith and credit of the United 
States must not be jeopardized.
  Default could set off a chain reaction of economic events, at home 
and abroad, that could be both uncontrollable and catastrophic. Even 
talking about a default carries costs that are being borne by the 
taxpayers and private businesses.
  As Members dedicated to fiscal responsibility and protecting the 
economic future of our country, I am pleased that we are finally taking 
responsible action to increase the debt ceiling and, in doing so, avoid 
default.
  Mr. Speaker, I also support enactment of a phased increase in the 
Social Security earnings limit and the provisions of the small business 
regulatory flexibility act.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the American people support the line-item 
veto, and have supported the line-item veto for a long time. I am sorry 
the gentleman from North Carolina did not stay on the floor. He asked 
me the question, could we not have made this effective now? I would 
return the question and say why did not the majority, the then-majority 
party, provide a line-item veto for the 40 years in which they 
controlled this body?
  It has been suggested that there are a number of reasons why we 
should not enact this legislation. It has been suggested that it is 
unconstitutional. It is not really our job to determine what is 
constitutional or what is not unconstitutional, but the fact is that we 
do provide severability in this measure. If a provision, any provision 
of the matter is considered to be unconstitutional, it can be stricken 
and the rest of the matter can stand.
  It has also been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we have engaged in a 
reckless transfer of power. I would suggest, on the contrary, this 
provides the President with a refined tool to attack the deficit 
problem that looms over us. It merely gives him an effort to be more 
selective in the way that he goes about deficit reduction.
  Congress retains the power to override any Presidential veto. We have 
not given that power away. I am sure that we will exercise that power. 
We also limit his ability to do this to whole dollar amounts. He cannot 
single out projects unless they are congressional earmarks. He has to 
take out the entire amount if he is going to do anything, so that was, 
I think, an important addition that we got in conference.
  Mr. Speaker, there are the dire results that have been indicated by 
some of the Members who have spoken against this measure, if, in fact, 
that turns out to be true, there is a sunset provision in this 
legislation that provides that there will be an opportunity to review 
this matter at a time within 8 years. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a 
reasonable, a reasoned, and a sensible measure that should be enacted.
  I want to discuss just one other brief area that needs clarification 
in this legislation. We created small business and agriculture 
enforcement ombudsmen who would be appointed by the Administrator in 
the SBA. Concerns have arisen in the inspector general community that 
those ombudsmen would have new enforcement powers that would conflict 
with those currently held by the inspectors general. I want to make it 
very clear that nothing in this act is intended to supercede or 
conflict with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, or to 
otherwise restrict or interfere with the activities of any office of 
the inspector general but, rather, be used to help our small business 
and work with the inspectors general.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan support for the increase in 
the debt limit and the line-item veto and regulatory reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the Joint 
Committee on Taxation containing examples of how the tax provisions of 
this measure would work.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 26, 1996.
     Hon. Peter Blute,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Blute: This is in response to your letter of March 
     24, 1996, in which you requested the staff of the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation to prepare some examples of how the 
     provisions of S. 4, the ``Line Item Veto Act,'' would apply 
     to tax legislation.
       The Line Item Veto Act provides that each ``limited tax 
     benefit'' is subject to the President's line-item veto 
     authority. In general, the Line Item Veto Act defines a 
     ``limited tax benefit'' as any provision prescribing tax 
     consequences under the Internal Revenue Code that is either 
     (1) a revenue-losing provision that provides a Federal tax 
     deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or fewer 
     beneficiaries in any fiscal year for which the provision is 
     in effect (subject to certain exceptions described below); or 
     (2) a Federal tax provision that provides temporary or 
     permanent transitional relief to 10 or fewer beneficiaries in 
     any fiscal year, except to the extent that the provision 
     provides for the retention of prior law for all binding 
     contracts (or other legally-enforceable obligations) in 
     existence on a date contemporaneous with Congressional action 
     specifying such a date. The Joint Committee on Taxation is 
     responsible for identifying limited tax benefits.
       A provision is defined as ``revenue-losing'' if it results 
     in a reduction in Federal tax revenues either for the first 
     year in which the provision is effective or for the 5-year 
     period beginning with the fiscal year in which the provision 
     is effective. A revenue-losing provision that affects 100 or 
     fewer beneficiaries in a fiscal year is not a limited tax 
     benefit if any of certain enumerated exceptions is satisfied. 
     First, if a provision has the effect of providing all persons 
     in the same industry or engaged in the same activity with the 
     same treatment, the item is not a limited tax benefit even if 
     there are 100 or fewer persons in the affected industry. For 
     this purpose, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     believes that a broad definition of ``activity'' is intended 
     to be applied, e.g. for purposes of determining whether a 
     proposal related to drug testing is a limited tax benefit, 
     all persons engaged in drug testing would be considered to be 
     engaged in the same activity or the same industry rather than 
     all persons engaged in clinical testing of drugs for certain 
     diseases. A second exception is for provisions that have the 
     effect of providing the same treatment to all persons owning 
     the same type of property or issuing the same type of 
     investment instrument. Finally, a provision is not a limited 
     tax benefit if the only reason the provision affects 
     different persons differently is because of: (1) the size or 
     form of the business or association involved; (2) general 
     demographic conditions affecting individuals, such as their 
     income level, marital status, number of dependents, or tax 
     return filing status; (3) the amount involved; or (4) a 
     generally available election provided under the Internal 
     Revenue Code.

[[Page H3011]]

       We have made a preliminary review of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1995 (the ``BBA''), as passed by the Congress, and 
     have also provided examples of items from earlier legislation 
     that would constitute limited tax benefits if the Line Item 
     Veto Act were in effect at the time such provisions were 
     enacted. (The Line Item Veto Act is scheduled to go into 
     effect on January 1, 1997, or the day after a seven-year 
     balanced budget act has been enacted, whichever is earlier.) 
     The attached list is not intended to be dispositive of 
     exhaustive. The Joint Committee staff continued to analyze 
     the provisions in the BBA and other tax legislation and it is 
     possible that additional provisions will be identified as 
     limited tax benefits.
       I hope that this information is helpful to you. If we can 
     be of further assistance, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kenneth J. Kies,
                                                   Chief of Staff.

 Examples of Limited Tax Benefits Within the Meaning of S. 4, the Line-
                             Item Veto Act


               the balanced budget act (``bba'') of 1995

1. Exemption from the generation-skipping transfer tax for transfers to 
             individuals with deceased parents (sec. 11074)

       Under present law, a generation-skipping transfer tax 
     generally is imposed on transfers to an individual who is 
     more than one generation younger than the transferor. An 
     exception provides that a transfer from a grandparent to a 
     grandchild is not subject to the generation-skipping tax if 
     the grandchild's parent (who is the grandparent's child) is 
     deceased at the time of the transfer. The BBA provision would 
     expand the present-law exception to apply also in other 
     limited circumstances, e.g., to transfers to grandnieces and 
     grandnephews whose parents are deceased.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any 
     of the stated exceptions. It does not provide the same 
     treatment to all persons engaged in the same activity--making 
     generation-skipping transfers--because transfers to 
     individuals with deceased parents would be treated 
     differently than transfers to individuals whose parents are 
     still alive.

        2. Extension of the orphan drug tax credit (sec. 11114)

       Prior to January 1, 1995, a 50-percent tax credit was 
     allowed for qualified clinical testing expenses incurred in 
     the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases or conditions. 
     The BBA provision would extend the credit through December 
     31, 1997.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 drug 
     companies in at least one fiscal year in which the provision 
     would be in effect, and all persons engaged in the activity 
     of drug testing are not treated the same. Only certain types 
     of drug testing would qualify for the credit.

 3. Extension of binding contract date for biomass and coal facilities 
                              (sec. 11142)

       Under present law, a tax credit is provided for fuel 
     produced from certain ``nonconventional sources.'' In the 
     case of synthetic fuel produced from coal and gas produced 
     from biomass, the credit is available only for fuel from 
     facilities placed in service before January 1, 1997, pursuant 
     to a binding contract entered into before January 1, 1996. 
     The BBA provision would extend the credit to facilities 
     placed in service before January 1, 1998, pursuant to a 
     binding contract entered into before July 1, 1996.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to affect fewer than 100 fuel 
     producers, and all persons engaged in the production of fuel 
     from nonconventional sources are not treated the same. 
     Persons producing fuel from nonconventional sources in 
     facilities placed in service after July 1, 1996 would not be 
     eligible for the credit.

   4. Exemption from diesel fuel dyeing requirements with respect to 
                      certain States (sec. 11143)

       Under present law, an excise tax is imposed on all diesel 
     fuel removed from a terminal facility unless the fuel is 
     destined for a non-taxable use and is indelibly dyed pursuant 
     to Treasury Department regulations. A similar dyeing regime 
     exists for diesel fuel under the Clean Air Act, but the State 
     of Alaska is partially exempt from the dyeing regime of the 
     Clean Air Act. The BBA provision would exempt diesel fuel 
     sold in the State of Alaska from the excise tax dyeing 
     requirement during the period when that State is exempt from 
     the Clean Air Act dyeing requirement.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any 
     of the stated exceptions. The provision does not treat all 
     persons engaged in the same activity the same way, because 
     persons removing diesel fuel from terminals in Alaska would 
     be treated differently than those removing diesel fuel from 
     terminals in other areas of the United States.

     5. Common investment fund for private foundations (sec. 11276)

       The BBA provision would grant tax-exempt status to any 
     cooperative service organization comprised solely of members 
     that are tax-exempt private foundations and community 
     foundations, if the organization meets certain requirements 
     and is organized and operated solely to hold, commingle, and 
     collectively invest and reinvest funds contributed by the 
     members in stocks and securities, and to collect income from 
     such investments and turn over such income, less expenses, to 
     the members.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any 
     of the stated exceptions. The provision does not treat all 
     persons engaged in the same activity the same way, because 
     mutual funds that are engaged in the same type of activity, 
     i.e., collectively investing funds in stocks and securities, 
     would not receive the benefit of the provision.

  6. Transition relief from repeal of section 936 credit (sec. 11305)

       Under present law, certain domestic corporations with 
     business operations in the U.S. possessions may elect the 
     section 936 credit which significantly reduces the U.S. tax 
     on certain income related to their operations in the 
     possessions. The BBA generally would repeal section 936 for 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995. However, 
     transition rules would be provided under which 
     corporations that are existing claimants under section 936 
     would be eligible to claim credits for a transition 
     period. One of these transition rules would allow a 
     corporation that is an existing claimant with respect to 
     operations in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands to continue to determine its 
     section 936 credit with respect to its operations in such 
     possessions under present law for its taxable years 
     beginning before January 1, 2006.
       This transition rule for corporations operating in Guam, 
     American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it is expected 
     to provide transitional relief from a change to the Internal 
     Revenue Code to 10 or fewer beneficiaries in at least one 
     fiscal year in which the provision would be in effect, and it 
     does not meet the binding contract exception.

7. Modification to excise tax on ozone-depleting chemicals (sec. 11332)

       Under present law, an excise tax is imposed on the sale or 
     use by the manufacturer or importer of certain ozone-
     depleting chemicals. Taxable chemicals that are recovered and 
     recycled within the United States are exempt from tax. The 
     BBA provision would extend the exemption to imported recycled 
     halons.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     importers in at least one fiscal year in which the provision 
     would be in effect, and it does not fall within any of the 
     stated exceptions. Although anyone who imports recycled 
     halons would receive the same treatment under the provision, 
     others engaged in the manufacture or import of ozone-
     depleting chemicals would not qualify for the exemption.

 8. Modification to tax-exempt bond penalties for local furnishers of 
                    electricity and gas (sec. 11333)

       Under present law, tax-exempt bonds may be issued to 
     benefit private businesses engaged in the furnishing of 
     electric energy or gas if the business's service area does 
     not exceed either two contiguous counties or a city and one 
     contiguous county. If, after such bonds are issued, the 
     service area is expanded beyond the permitted geographic 
     area, interest on the bonds becomes taxable, and interest 
     paid by the private parties on bond-financed loans becomes 
     nondeductible. The BBA provision would allow private 
     businesses engaged in the local furnishing of electricity or 
     gas to expand their service areas beyond the geographic 
     bounds allowed under present law without penalty under 
     certain specified circumstances.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any 
     of the stated exceptions. All persons engaged in the activity 
     of generating electricity or gas would not be treated the 
     same.

 9. Tax-exempt bonds for sale of Alaska Power Administration Facility 
                              (sec. 11334)

       Under present law, tax-exempt bonds may be issued for the 
     benefit of certain private electric utilities. If the bonds 
     are used to finance acquisition of existing property by these 
     utilities, a minimum amount of rehabilitation must be 
     performed on the property as a condition of receiving the 
     tax-exempt bond financing. The BBA provision would waive the 
     rehabilitation requirement in the case of bonds to be issued 
     as part of the sale of the Snettisham facility by the Alaska 
     Power Administration.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit only one issuer of 
     tax-exempt bonds, and it does not fall within any of the 
     stated exceptions. No other issuers of tax-exempt bonds would 
     benefit from the provision.

         10. Transitional rule under section 2056A (sec. 11614)

       Under present law, a marital deduction generally is allowed 
     for estate and gift tax purposes for the value of property 
     passing to a spouse. The marital deduction is not available 
     for property passing to a non-U.S.-citizen spouse outside a 
     qualified domestic trust

[[Page H3012]]

     (``QDT''). The requirements for a qualified domestic trust 
     were modified in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1990 (``OBRA 1990''). The BBA provision would allow trusts 
     created before the enactment of OBRA 1990 to qualify as QDTs 
     if they satisfy the requirements that were in effect before 
     the enactment of OBRA 1990.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect, and it does not fall within any 
     of the stated exceptions. The provision would benefit a 
     closed group of taxpayers. Trusts created before the 
     enactment of OBRA 1990 would be treated differently than 
     trusts created after the enactment of OBRA 1990.

         11. Organizations subject to section 833 (sec. 11703)

       Present-law section 833 (created in the Tax Reform Act of 
     1986) provides special tax benefits to Blue Cross or Blue 
     Shield organizations existing on August 16, 1986, which have 
     not experienced a material change in structure or operations 
     since that date. The BBA provision would extend this special 
     rule to other similarly-structured organizations that were in 
     existence on August 16, 1986, and have not materially changed 
     in structure or operations since that date.
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit fewer than 100 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect, and all persons engaged in the 
     same activity would not be entitled to take the benefit. The 
     benefit would be available only to a closed group of 
     taxpayers that were in existence in 1986, and would not be 
     available to any newly formed entities.


        Examples of ``Limited Tax Benefits'' from Other Statutes

 1. The original income tax, as enacted in 1913, exempted the sitting 
                               President

       The 1913 Act imposing the first income tax provided an 
     exemption for the sitting President of the United States for 
     the remainder of his term. If the Line Item Veto Act had been 
     applicable at the time, the President would have had the 
     option of canceling this ``limited tax benefit.''

 2. Financial institution transition rule to interest allocation rules

       A provision in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the rules 
     relating to how multinational corporations allocate interest 
     expense for foreign tax credit purposes. The provision 
     included a favorable rule for banks, and also included a 
     special exception allowing ``certain'' nonbanks to use the 
     favorable bank rule. The special exception applied to any 
     corporation if ``(A) such corporation is a Delaware 
     corporation incorporated on August 20, 1959, and (B) such 
     corporation was primarily engaged in the financing of dealer 
     inventory or consumer purchases on May 29, 1985, and at all 
     times thereafter before the close of the taxable year.'' P.L. 
     99-514, 100 Stat. 2548, sec. 1215(c)(5).
       This transition rule would have been a ``limited tax 
     benefit'' if it were expected to provide transitional relief 
     from a change to the Internal Revenue Code to 10 or fewer 
     beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect. (In retrospect, it is believed 
     that 10 or fewer beneficiaries actually received the benefit 
     of this provision.)

                 3. Community development corporations

       The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included a 
     provision that created an income tax credit for entities that 
     make qualified cash contributions to one of 20 ``community 
     development corporations'' (``CDCs'') to be selected by the 
     Secretary of HUD using certain selection criteria. Each CDC 
     could designate which contributions (up to $2 million per 
     CDC) would be eligible for the credit.
       This provision would have constituted a ``limited tax 
     benefit'' if it were expected to provide a benefit to 100 or 
     fewer contributors in at least one fiscal year in which the 
     provision would be in effect. (In retrospect, it is believed 
     that 100 or fewer contributors received the benefit of this 
     provision.) All persons who engage in the activity of making 
     contributions to CDCs are not treated the same, and the 
     difference is not based upon size, filing status, or any of 
     the other enumerated factors.

     4. Exemptions from cutbacks in meal and entertainment expense 
                               deductions

       Prior to 1986, a 100-percent deduction was provided for 
     certain meal and entertainment expenses. In 1986, the 
     deduction was reduced to an 80-percent deduction. In 1993, 
     the deduction was again reduced, to a 50-percent deduction. 
     In both 1986 and 1993, an exemption was provided for food 
     and beverages provided on an offshore oil or gas platform 
     or drilling rig. A separate exemption was provided for 
     support camps in proximity to and integral to such a 
     platform or rig, if the platform or rig is located in the 
     United States north of 54 degrees north latitude (i.e., in 
     Alaska).
       These exemptions both would have been ``limited tax 
     benefits'' in 1986 if they had been expected to provide 
     transitional relief from a change to the Internal Revenue 
     Code to 10 or fewer beneficiaries in at least one fiscal year 
     in which the provision would be in effect.

      5. Transition relief from private activity bond requirements

       The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 created a new 
     category of private activity bond for bonds issued by a 
     governmental unit to acquire certain nongovernmental output 
     property, e.g., electrical generation facilities. Such bonds 
     generally are subject to a State's annual private activity 
     volume limitation. However, specific transition relief was 
     provided for ``bonds issued--(A) after October 13, 1987, by 
     an authority created by a statute--(i) approved by the State 
     Governor on July 24, 1986 and (ii) sections 1 through 10 of 
     which became effective on January 15, 1987, and (B) to 
     provide facilities serving the area specified in such statute 
     on the date of its enactment.''
       This provision is a ``limited tax benefit'' because it 
     loses revenue, it is expected to benefit only on issuer of 
     tax-exempt bonds, and it does not fall within any of the 
     stated exceptions. No other issuers of tax-exempt bonds would 
     benefit from the provision.

              6. Various Tax Reform Act of 1986 provisions

       The Tax Reform Act of 1986 contains a number of provisions 
     that are clearly targeted to only one taxpayer (in some 
     cases, even referring to the taxpayer by name). For example:
       ``* * * indebtedness (which was outstanding on May 29, 
     1985) of a corporation incorporated on June 13, 1917, which 
     has its principal place of business in Bartlesville, 
     Oklahoma.'' (sec. 1215(c)(2)(D))
       ``In the case of an affiliated group of domestic 
     corporations the common parent of which has its principal 
     office in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and has a certificate of 
     organization which was filed with the Secretary of the State 
     of New Jersey on November 10, 1887 * * *'' (sec. 
     1215(c)(6)(A))
       A facility if ``(i) such facility is to be used by both a 
     National Hockey League team and a National Basketball 
     Association team, (ii) such facility is to be constructed on 
     a platform using air rights over land acquired by a State 
     authority and identified as site B in a report dated May 30, 
     1984, prepared for a State urban development corporation, and 
     (iii) such facility is eligible for real property tax (and 
     power and energy) benefits pursuant to State legislation 
     approved and effective as of July 7, 1982.'' (sec. 
     1317(3)(S))
       ``A project is described in this subparagraph if such 
     project is consistent with an urban renewal plan adopted or 
     ordered prepared before August 28, 1986, by the city council 
     of the most populous city in a state which entered the Union 
     on February 14, 1859.'' (sec. 1317(6)(U))
       A facility if ``(i) such facility is to be used for an 
     annual civic festival, (ii) a referendum was held in the 
     spring of 1985 in which voters permitted the city council to 
     lease 130 acres of dedicated parkland to such festival, and 
     (iii) the city council passed an inducement resolution on 
     June 19, 1986.'' (sec. 1317(7)(J))
       A residential rental property if ``(i) it is a new 
     residential development with approximately 98 dwelling units 
     located in census tract No. 4701, and (ii) there was an 
     inducement ordinance for such project adopted by a city 
     council on August 14, 1984.'' (sec. 1317(13)(M))
       ``A facility is described in this subparagraph if it 
     consists of the rehabilitation of the Andover Town Hall in 
     Andover, Massachusetts.'' (sec. 1317(27)(I))
       Proceeds of an issue if ``(i) such issue is issued on 
     behalf of a university established by Charter granted by King 
     George II of England on October 31, 1754, to accomplish a 
     refunding (including an advance refunding) of bonds issued to 
     finance 1 or more projects, and (ii) the application or other 
     request for the issuance of the issue to the appropriate 
     State issuer was made by or on behalf of such university 
     before February 26, 1986.'' (sec. 1317(33)(C))
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey] is recognized for 12 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, when we wrote the Contract With America, we promised the 
American people a new deal, a change, a real change which would be 
meaningful in their real lives. We promised innovation and 
responsiveness.
  Today we bring forward the Contract With America Advancement Act, and 
it includes the line-item veto. The line-item veto is something the 
American people have called for for years. The chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], who first came to 
Congress with Richard Nixon was in the White House, introduced the 
line-item veto at that time.
  Through the end of the Nixon Presidency and through the Ford 
Presidency, through the Carter Presidency, the Reagan Presidency, the 
Bush Presidency, and thus far through the Clinton Presidency, the 
chairman has fought for a line-item veto, and through all that time the 
other party, while in the majority, were unwilling to give this 
authority to the President

[[Page H3013]]

of the United States. They were unwilling to give this authority to any 
President, Republican or Democrat, because they claimed it for 
themselves, in defiance of the will of the American people. Today we 
will pass it, Mr. Speaker.
  We promised and we are delivering today, regulatory reform to give 
relief to the small business men and women of this country who create 
the majority of our new good jobs. Again, we are trying to roll back 
the regulatory steamroller that has been running over small business in 
America and has been the hallmark of initiatives of the past Democrat 
majorities.
  In this landmark piece of legislation, we are increasing the 
limitation on earnings available to our senior citizens before they see 
a reduction of their Social Security benefits, benefits that were 
bought and paid for with after-tax dollars throughout all their working 
years, a simple justice for senior Americans, denied to them for all 
these years by the Democrat majorities in the past.
  They say we are late in getting this done. In the first few months of 
the second session of our first term in the majority in 40 years, they 
say we are late in getting done what it is they never would or never 
could even try to do. We will stand on our promptness. These contract 
items that will go forward today, I expect the President will sign. 
Unhappily, he has vetoed others.

  The President has already vetoed lower taxes for the working men and 
women of this country. Welfare reform, much needed and much called for 
by the people of this country, the President has vetoed twice. A 
balanced budget the President has vetoed; significant spending 
reductions and reform, the President has vetoed. The President has not 
been an agent of change for the American people, Mr. Speaker. The 
President has been a veto for the status quo.
  When the President vetoed these bills, he shut down the Government, 
and yes, he won a short-term public relations battle. Many were 
counting us out in our new majority by the end of last year, but we 
came back in March, and we are back. We have just completed the most 
productive month of this Congress. During this month of March we have 
passed a farm bill that is truly revolutionary, taking agriculture in a 
new direction of freedom for all Americans.
  As I have observed the move of farm policy in the past, I have found 
myself observing that when the American farmers bit on it and joined a 
partnership with the Federal Government, they became the junior 
partners, not free on their own land. We are fixing that this month.
  We are passing this month a job that we began in 1990, that we had 
prepared in 1991, that was disallowed to come to this floor by the 
Democrat majority in 1991, that would move health legislation to end 
job lock, and would make insurance more affordable for all Americans. 
That will be done before we leave this week.
  We will pass this week product liability reforms. The gentleman from 
Illinois, Henry Hyde, our distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, sat on that committee for 22 years, 22 years of time 
when the American people cried for relief from the product liability 
laws that were choking off job creation in America, and the gentleman 
from Illinois never got to see even a single hearing on the subject 
under Democrat chairmen. We will pass that on to the President this 
week. He says he will veto it on behalf of the trial lawyers.
  We have passed already in March the most effective death penalty 
ever. We have passed an immigration reform that, one, protects our 
borders; and two, reflects the true openness and compassion to lovers 
of freedom that this country has demonstrated through its foundation 
and through its entire history.
  Today in Roll Call, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was called landmark 
and nontraditional. It is landmark and it is nontraditional, 
nontraditional in the sense that for the past 40 years we had a do-
nothing majority that only chose to build on the status quo, never 
chose to dare to take a chance on freedom, never chose to dare to 
innovate, never chose to keep faith and be responsive to the demands of 
the American people.
  We are doing that today, and we will do that through the rest of this 
term, and we will do that in the next Congress, because, Mr. Speaker, 
the American people deserve a Congress that has the ability to know 
their goodness and the decency to respect it. That is what they will 
have.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when every 
Member should be mindful of the undertaking that we make at the 
beginning of every Congress to protect and defend the Constitution of 
the United States, because adopting the line-item veto provision in 
this proposed bill would run absolutely counter to that obligation. The 
first words of Article I, sec. 1 of the Constitution are, ``All 
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the 
United States.'' Later in Article I, sec. 7 dealing with the 
President's responsibility with regard to legislation, the Constitution 
states as follows: ``If he approve, he shall sign it,''--the bill--
``but, if not, he shall return it with his objections.''
  Those are the basic parameters of the legislative responsibilities 
that we have under the Constitution and that the President has under 
the Constitution, and it is not in our power to change them. It is our 
responsibility in fact to respect and preserve them.
  While our friends across the ocean in Britain are having second 
thoughts these days about their monarchy, this line-item veto provision 
will effectively start the accretion of monarchical power in the 
American presidency. The Founders would surely be appalled.
  Incredibly, under this proposal, after an appropriations bill has 
been passed by the Congress and signed it into law, the President can 
repeal, the authors of this bill say ``cancel,'' those parts of that 
law he opposes by the mere act of writing them down on paper and 
sending the list to Congress. This ``repeal'' power may be suitable for 
Royalty but it is an unconstitutional insult to the principle of 
representative democracy.
  Recall those grand words of the Declaration of Independence in which 
we protested the usurpation of power by King George, and mark my words, 
we will live to regret the usurpation of power that we invite on the 
part of future Presidents of the United States if this provision 
becomes law.
  Thank God the courts stand ready to do the right thing and to find 
this provision, as it is, contrary to the Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has spoken to this issue most recently and on point 
in the Chadha case, there making it absolutely clear that the powers of 
neither branch with respect to the division of responsibility on 
legislation can be legislatively eroded.
  What is even more bizarre in this particular proposal is the 
provision for the 5 day cancellation period. Now think about that. This 
is a metaphysical leap of Herculean proportions.
  The enactment provisions of the Constitution say that once the 
President signs a bill, it shall be law. We propose that he then has a 
5 day cancellation right, after signing a bill? That is absolutely 
absurd. This defies any logical reading of the clear meaning to the 
provisions of the Constitution that delineate the roles and powers of 
Congress and the President with respect to legislation.
  But beyond the constitutional arguments, this proposal is 
fundamentally unwise. And, sadly, it manifests a shameful disrespect by 
us of our own responsibilities and the Constitution.
  On the large issues, let us think back to what would have happened 
during the Reagan administration, with a President who, for his own 
reasons, sent budgets to this body zeroing most categories of education 
funding in the Federal budget. Presumably, if that President had this 
power, it would be exercised to eliminate most education funding by the 
United States Government, and 34 Senators representing 9 percent of the 
people of this country, in league with the President, could have 
brought about the outcome.

  The invitation to usurpation that lies in this language is even more 
pernicious and can also be understood by going back to the late 
eighties, when we were still debating whether we would continue aid to 
the Contras. Now, let's say I happened to have been fortunate enough to 
have gotten a provision in an appropriations bill for a needed post 
office or a needed courthouse in my district, and the bill was down at 
the White House awaiting signature at the same time we were debating 
aid to the Contras. I would guarantee you I would have gotten a call 
from someone at the White House saying ``Congressman, I notice you had 
some success in dealing with this need in your district. We are pleased 
at that, but we need your support on aid to the Contras.'' The not so 
subtle message: your vote on what we want, or you lose the post office.
  That is the kind of extortionate excess of power that we are inviting 
future presidents to apply.
  Pick your issue. That is one that comes to my mind.
  It is clear that the Governors of the several States who have this 
power use it in exactly

[[Page H3014]]

this way, to get their version of spending adopted. As one former 
Governor recently stated, the real use of the line-item veto power he 
had as Governor was not to control a bloated budget but to persuade 
legislators to change their votes on important issues. Ironically, this 
may actually result in more spending; in most cases, certainly no 
reduction.
  Last year, the majority in this body rejected the expedited 
rescissions proposal that represented a constitutionally acceptable 
approach to this issue, requiring each Member of Congress to be 
accountable with a specific vote on any items a President might find 
objectionable enough to rescind. Without that mechanism for requiring 
congressional reconsideration, the line-item veto proposal before us is 
clearly unconstitutional.
  The language in the Constitution clearly gives Congress the 
responsibility for crafting legislation, while the President is limited 
to simple approval or disapproval of bills presented to him. Article I, 
section 7 refers to the President returning a bill, not pieces of a 
bill. Yes, the Constitution allows the President to state his 
objections to a bill upon returning it, but the objections merely serve 
as guidelines for Congress should it choose to redraft the legislation.
  We have no legitimate power to pass a statute to the contrary. The 
Constitution does not allow the President to repeal a provision of law 
by striking a spending level approved by Congress. We have no 
legitimate power to pass a statute to the contrary.
  As the Supreme Court noted in its decision I.N.S. versus Chadha, 
``Explicit and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution prescribe and 
define the respective functions of the Congress and of the Executive in 
the legislative process.''
  The Court continues, ``These provisions of Article 1 are integral 
parts of the constitutional design for the separation of powers.'' The 
line-item veto proposal in the bill before us would impermissibly alter 
the ``constitutional design for the separation of powers'' between the 
executive and legislative branches by allowing the President 
singlehandedly to repeal or amend legislation which Congress has 
approved, and the President has already signed into law.
  The Framers were deliberate and precise in dividing legislative 
powers. In the Federalist papers, Hamilton and Madison both expressed 
the view that the legislature would be the most powerful branch of 
government. Thus, they also recognized the need for some checks on its 
powers. So, the Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature, with 
each body elected under different terms and districts. And it affords 
the President a veto power. Other constraints are also imposed, such as 
requirements for origination of certain legislation in the House.

  The President's veto power, as a check on Congress, was recognized to 
be a blunt instrument. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 73, the 
Framers acknowledged that with the veto power ``the power of preventing 
bad laws includes that of preventing good ones.'' It was their sense, 
however, that ``the negative would be employed with great caution.''
  The line-item veto being considered today, by providing the President 
with the authority to repeal or ``cancel'' appropriations and some tax 
laws, turns the framework defined in article I, section 7 on its head. 
What the President might decide to ``cancel'' under this provision is 
simply repealed, unless the Congress goes through an entire repetition 
of the article I legislative process, including a two-thirds vote of 
both houses. This would allow the President and a minority in only one 
house of Congress to frustrate the will of the majority--an outcome 
that flies in the face of the constitutional principle of majority 
rule.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must comment on a very deceptive provision of 
this line-item veto bill. The authors of the bill claim it doesn't 
focus unfairly on appropriations bills--which traditionally include 
funding for education, environmental, health, and other governmental 
programs--because it also includes tax provisions among the items the 
President can ``cancel.''
  But, the only tax provisions that can be cancelled are ``limited tax 
benefits,'' defined as revenue-losing provisions that provide a benefit 
to ``100 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986.'' A tax break for a particular industry that takes millions of 
dollars out of the Federal treasury can't be cancelled by the 
President. And even a so-called limited tax break can be easily 
finessed--that is, immunized from veto--if the conference report merely 
fails to identify it as such.
  Why? I think the answer is obvious. Many members of the majority 
party are fond of handing out tax breaks to their friends in particular 
industries. So, under this bill, a member who wants to include funding 
in an appropriations bill for a national park in her Congressional 
District must worry about the President cancelling a benefit to her 
District, but a member who wants to provide funding to his favorite 
industry or business by including a tax break in a larger tax bill 
doesn't need to be concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal goes too far in fuzzing the separation of 
powers set forth in the Constitution. It subjects members of Congress 
to a new, extreme form of executive branch pressure. It unfairly 
targets appropriation expenditures while ignoring most tax 
expenditures. I urge my colleagues to reject it before it is rejected 
by the courts. Regrettably, this provision so taints this entire bill, 
otherwise needed to extend the debt limit, that the bill itself should 
be defeated.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation to 
raise the debt ceiling because I do not believe we can allow our 
Government to go into default. To do otherwise would wreak havoc on our 
Nation's good standing and would result in Social Security and Veterans 
benefits from being sent out.
  It is difficult to take this action but I can tell you that because 
of this Congress' vigilance we have already saved approximately $23 
billion in spending over the past year. This is a very good start on 
the road to achieving a balanced budget.
  There are two provisions in particular that are included in this 
measure that allow me to vote in favor of H.R. 3136.
  We provide the means to give the President the line-item veto. 
President Reagan asked Congress over and over again--``Give me the 
line-item veto.'' If only Congress had given him this mechanism for 
fiscal discipline, we wouldn't have these huge debts which, if not 
reduced, threaten to crush the next generation with huge taxes and a 
diminished quality of life.
  Today we have been given a rare opportunity to enact legislation that 
will accomplish this.
  My other chief reason for voting for this bill is that it contains an 
increase in the earnings limit for those age 65 to 69 to $30,000 by the 
year 2002. Currently, a working senior who reaches $11,280 in earned 
income loses $1 in Social Security for each $3 earned thereafter. 
That's a marginal tax rate of 33 percent. That's a high price for 
merely wanting to work.
  The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats Social Security benefits 
less like a pension and more like welfare. It represents a Social 
Security bias in favor of unearned income over earned income.
  It is effectively a mandatory retirement mechanism our country no 
longer accepts or needs. It precludes greater flexibility for the 
elderly worker and also prevents America's full use of eager, 
experienced and educated elderly workers. Finally, it deprives the U.S. 
economy of the additional income tax which would be generated by the 
elderly workers.
  Let's pass this bill today so that we can get America back on the 
right track.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support this measure, H.R. 
3136, the debt limit package. First, we need to honor the debt which 
our Nation has incurred. The U.S. credit rating must not be in 
question, nor should the risk of default. For over 200 years through 
civil and world wars, recession and depression, the United States has 
honored our debt.
  Certainly it is deplorable that the total U.S. debt has grown so 
dramatically in the past decades, but the 1993 Clinton budget measure 
passed by Congress has had a dramatic and positive impact. The deficit 
of 1996 is half of the 1993 projected 1996 deficit, lowering the amount 
of deficit by $150 billion this 1996 fiscal year, and at the same time 
our Nation's economy has performed positively, inflation is in check, 
unemployment remains low and productivity growth, G.D.P., and business 
profitability are strong.
  This debt ceiling will act to accommodate the Federal budget needs 
until late 1997. It is past time to take this off the Republican 
political agenda. The threat of default and intimidation won't work, to 
sell GOP budget programs that lack merit.
  Included in this package of legislative measures is a 
constitutionally questionable line item veto power for the President. 
President Clinton, of course, wants this power, but this sloppy 
rearrangement of the fundamental separation of powers proviso won't 
pass muster. Furthermore, the line item veto power in this promises 
much but delivers little. First, it doesn't apply to authorization and 
appropriation riders.
  Therefore, the environmental riders so controversial this fiscal year 
would be beyond the line item veto reach of this measure. Second, it 
only applies to categories of spending, making it impossible to single 
out the specific bad apple in the basket. Finally it doesn't apply to 
bad tax policy, only specific narrow tax provisions of specific small 
groups as certified by the Joint Tax Committee.
  Yet another dubious congressional limit in the constitutional 
separation of powers and unique congressional authority which cannot be 
delegated to the nonelected apparently is the rush to give away 
congressional powers held by the previous Democratic Congress. The 
Republicans have today sold symbolism,

[[Page H3015]]

not substance, to the Executive Office, and they bought it. To add 
further limits, the measure has a short life--1997 to 2005. This line 
item veto is weak, not likely to be effective and will be rendered 
inoperable by the courts and/or its limited scope.
  Everyone can record it on their political campaign literature as an 
accomplishment, that's probably its best use; other issues added to the 
debt ceiling measure apparently are popular and the further price of 
the 2-year debt ceiling which the President agreed to. I'm concerned 
that the expanded Social Security earning limit, the retirement test 
ceiling may undermine support for the Social Security Retirement 
System. The basic predicate of Social Security retirement is that the 
beneficiary is no longer working. This means a job and slot is 
available to a less senior worker.
  For many, this elevated ceiling means they will receive Social 
Security retirement benefits but remain on the same job, in essence 
claiming a retirement income and the wages of a worker. The idea 
regarding the Social Security retirement is that workers are not able 
to continue working and that the Social Security income provides for 
that person and family during that phase of one's life. At least this 
measure maintains a ceiling and earlier versions lifted it even 
further.
  The income group that benefits from this provision is healthy and 
generally better off financially. It would be regrettable if the upshot 
of this policy change would undermine Social Security retirement for 
those unable to work.
  Finally, this overall bill contains some regulatory relief for 
smaller enterprises. Candidly, I've had serious reservations about the 
broad ranging measures that try to pass as regulatory relief. Too many 
have been put forth and passed by the 104th Congress whose intent was 
to render inoperable important health, safety, and environmental laws.
  Rules and regulations are the wheels which carry laws into 
implementation. Usually the Administrative Procedures Act [APA] 
provides sufficient assurance of participation and monitoring of the 
executive department or agency rule and regulatory process. The 
features of this provision seems reasonable--ironically expanding the 
potential for lawsuits and litigation--after the Republican majority in 
this House and Congress have beat the drum and attempted to enact ill 
considered punitive measures on the legal process and limiting the 
peoples right to seek redress.
   Mr. Speaker, legislation is the art of compromise and as we can note 
from this document a big dose of symbolism. I'm voting for this measure 
with little enthusiasm, but with a pragmatic eye.
  The Republicans have finally arrived at a point of talking with a 
Democratic President and have convinced themselves to move forward on 
the debt ceiling, the main vehicle and single most important engine 
which necessitates this legislation before the House.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the regulatory reform 
provisions of the bill for the following reasons.
  On process: This bill has never been considered by the Judiciary 
Committee or by any other committee in the House. It's stealth 
process--we only saw the final draft late last night--continues the 
Republican record of disdain for the committees and for proper 
democratic process. This bill was created by a secret process in the 
House, and will allow special interests to secretly influence 
regulations in the executive branch.
  The secret influences of the few: Under the bill, so-called 
Regulatory Fairness Boards and Advocacy Panels are to be established to 
directly influence the content of regulations and the nature of 
regulatory enforcement. These boards are to be made up solely of a few 
favored small businesses, and can include exclusively campaign 
contributors.
  Ex parte contacts in reg writing: The boards and advocacy panels will 
provide an avenue for private ex parte contacts with the agencies and 
the OIRA administrator to influence regulations and enforcement--a 
departure from the commonly accepted principle that the regulation 
writing process should be open and on the record. They provide an ex 
parte and secret forum for these favored businesses to complain about 
how statutorily mandated regulations are written and enforced.
  Yet another attack on the environment: While we all support the 
concept of regulatory flexibility--that is helping small businesses 
comply with a vast array of Federal regulations--this bill takes the 
concept to the extreme. For it allows the waiver of some of our most 
important environmental penalties relating to safe drinking water and 
clean air. If, for example, it happens to be a small business that is 
operating a chemical manufacturing operation or a small business that 
is a water supplier, laws protecting citizens from drinking water 
hazards like cryptosporidium or other chemical contamination could 
simply be waived (section 323). Our environmental safety and health is 
at risk from these hazards regardless of the source of the hazards.
  Still more litigation for the lawyers: Section 611 allows for 
environmental regulations that protect our air, water, food, and 
workplaces to be suspended or even overturned by the courts if these 
and other ill-defined provisions are not strictly adhered to. This 
judicial review is different from what the House has voted on in the 
past--for past regulatory flexibility bills that we've voted on allow 
for judicial review of the reg flex analysis only. This bill, however, 
could put hundreds of environmental rules at risk, and subject them to 
endless litigation in the courts for merely procedural reasons that are 
only marginally related to the fundamental issues surrounding the 
promulgation of the rule.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill. It 
contains measures which I strongly support. Most importantly, raising 
the debt ceiling is absolutely essential to ensuring the continued full 
faith and credit of the United States. Without passage of this bill, 
the economic security of our country would be gravely imperiled. The 
legislation also contains provisions to relieve the regulatory burden 
on our Nation's small businesses and a measure, which I strongly 
support, to increase the earnings limit for Social Security recipients.
  This measure also contains a line-item veto provision about which I 
have very serious concerns. First, this conference report grants to the 
President the significant power to item veto new entitlement spending. 
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and food stamps help 
out most vulnerable citizens, the elderly, and infirm. The original 
House bill, and the Republican's own contract on America, did not grant 
this authority.
  The line-item veto provision before us today also would not become 
effective until January 1, 1997. This timing conveniently exempts the 
fiscal year 1997 appropriations cycle from Presidential line-item 
vetoes. Cynics might conclude that the Republican majority wants one 
last chance to tuck the pet projects into this year's appropriations 
bills.
  Finally and most egregiously Mr. Chairman, this line-item veto 
measure takes a loophole included in the House-passed bill and expanded 
it into a black hole for special interests. The House bill included a 
provision on allowing the President to item veto targeted tax breaks. 
Unfortunately, the majority breached its own contract in defining that 
term very narrowly to mean only those tax give-aways that affect 100 or 
fewer people. This artificial number can easily be fudged by a smart 
tax lawyer--you simply have to help out 101 or 102 people.
  This conference report includes this loophole and expands it into a 
black hole for special interests by allowing the President to item veto 
only those targeted tax benefits identified by the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, a committee controlled by the tax writing committees of 
Congress. So if they say it isn't a special interest tax break, the 
President can never veto it. Mr. Chairman, this is a sham.
  The Republican Party was committed to the much broader definition 
right up to the moment they gained the majority, then they had a sudden 
change of heart. With this bill the Republicans claim they will end 
special interest tax breaks, but if you read the fine print you'll see 
they expect nothing of the kind.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3136, 
the Contract With America Advancement Act.
  This Member is particularly pleased that, as reported on the House 
floor H.R. 3136 included the Line-Item Veto Act. An important tool in 
the battle to reduce spending would be to give the President line-item 
veto authority.
  A line-item veto would enable the President to veto individual items 
in an appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill. With a line-
item veto the executive could strike a pen to the pork-barrel projects 
that too often find their way into appropriations bills.
  This power is currently given to 43 of the Nation's Governors, where 
it has been a successful tool that discourages unnecessary expenditures 
at the State level. It is appropriate that the President have this 
authority as well.
  This Member has cosponsored legislation to institute a line-item veto 
since 1985, and is pleased that this initiative may soon be enacted 
into law. Legislation to provide for a line-item veto has been 
introduced in Congress for over 100 years. The time has come to 
recognize the need for more stringent and binding budget mechanisms.
  This Member is also pleased that H.R. 3136 raises the limit on income 
senior citizens may earn and still receive full Social Security 
benefits. In the last three Congresses, this Member cosponsored related 
legislation, and has consistently supported efforts to reduce or 
eliminate the Social Security earnings limit on senior citizens who 
must work to make ends meet. Seniors of modest means who have to work 
to supplement their Social Security checks should be allowed to work 
without paying an effective marginal tax rate higher than that of 
millionaires.
  In addition, this legislation also includes much-needed regulatory 
relief provisions that

[[Page H3016]]

would inject some common sense into the current regulatory and 
bureaucratic framework which now exists.
  Federal regulations cost the economy hundred so billions of dollars 
each year. Too often, these regulations were not based on sound science 
and resulted in little or no benefit to society. This is an issue which 
must be addressed to provide relief from the plethora of Federal 
regulations.
  This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3136 as reported to 
the House floor, in order to advance important initiatives to establish 
a line-item veto, provide regulatory relief, and limit an unfair tax on 
senior citizens.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act, a 
measure to provide for a line-item veto, for Social Security benefits 
relief for our senior citizens and for small business regulatory 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, during my tenure in the Congress, I have been a solid 
and steady advocate of a platform that recognizes we need to bring real 
change to this Federal Government of ours. For example, during my 
freshman and sophomore years, I had sponsored legislation providing for 
the implementation of a Presidential line-item veto to end the days 
where the legislatively-spawned Government pork and largesse would 
cause our deficit to grow like an unkempt bush in one's front yard and 
the President would not have the hedge clippers to trim it.
  However, during those two Congresses, I and other fervent supporters 
of the line-item veto had been frustrated and thwarted by the then-
Democratic majority. The Democrats would say that a line-item veto 
would render Congress impotent or that Congress does not need to use 
such a draconian measure as a line-item veto and that we can solve our 
Nation's fiscal problems by just saying no to pork. Mr. Speaker, I did 
not accept the Democrats' empty assurances about spending then, and my 
instincts were proved current when that supposed discipline was nowhere 
to be found.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, times have changed. With the passage of H.R. 
3136, the President of the United States, be he Republican or Democrat, 
will be able to eliminate specific spending and target tax provision in 
legislation passed by the Congress. This is important, for now the 
President will have the ability to veto out pork barrel spending in a 
bill which he may view in an otherwise favorable light. Mr. Speaker, 
this is a mechanism that 43 of our Governors now possess, and we should 
extend it to the President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take note of other provisions in H.R. 
3136 that I support. I feel that the bill's provisions which raise the 
limit of income senior citizens may earn while still receiving full 
Social Security benefits would be beneficial to those concerned.
  Presently, senior citizens between the ages of 65 and 69 lose $1 in 
Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above $11,520 while the 
earnings test amounts to an additional 33 percent marginal tax rate on 
top of existing income taxes. Because of this, seniors who want to work 
past the age 64 would not have the ability to remain productive, and 
thus, they are unfairly treated. H.R. 3136 would gradually raise the 
earnings limit for seniors between the ages of 65 and 90 from the 
current level of $11,520 to $30,000 by the year 2002.
  I have spoken with many seniors around my district, and they, Mr. 
Speaker, have indicated to me that this measure sounds like a pretty 
good idea. Many of the seniors in my district still want to work full 
time or part time. They want to be productive members of society and by 
raising the limit on income, they can achieve this desired lifestyle. 
We should definitely support this initiative.
  Finally, I rise in full support of the measures in H.R. 3136 which 
would provide regulatory relief to our Nation's small businesses. 
Presently, Federal regulations cost our Nation's small businesses an 
astronomical $430 billion per year while spending a ludicrous 1.9 
billions hours per year completing Federal regulatory forms.
  Included in these relief provisions are reforms providing for 
regulatory compliance simplification, regulatory flexibility, 
procedures for Congress to disapprove new regulations, and small 
business legal fees associated with fighting excessive proposed 
penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the true lifeblood of our Nation's 
economy. By helping our small businesses by providing regulatory 
fairness, we will truly help our workers, our families, our towns and 
our cities.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3136, and I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise when it comes time to vote.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about 
H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act. I will vote for 
this bill because it raises the debt limit, however, I must state that 
I would have preferred a clean debt limit bill. I support the increase 
in the earnings limit for social security beneficiaries, however, I 
would like to have had more debate about the small business regulatory 
flexibility provisions.
  I am a strong supporter of small business, which is the foundation of 
America's economic base. I support regulatory flexibility for small 
business and having clear guidelines so that small businesses can more 
easily comply with Government standards. However, I have concerns about 
bogging down Government agencies in frivolous lawsuits that would draw 
their attention away from maintaining Government standards for the 
environment and ensuring workplace safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to discuss this bill in the context of 
the current ongoing budget debate, and I would urge that we as a body 
do more for the American people than pass a debt limit increase. 
Although we will be discussing other important issues the Health 
Coverage Availability Act, I would like to remind this House of the 
glaring fact that we do not yet have a balanced budget for the United 
States, when this fiscal year is half over, and we have not provided 
funding for all of the Government agencies that serve the American 
public. This outrageous fact is not forgotten by the American people, 
and I would urge the leadership on both sides to not forget their duty 
to the citizens of this country.
  The summer is fast approaching and teens that participate in the 
Summer Jobs Program are wondering if the budget will leave their 
program intact, or if it will be eliminated. Students and families 
across the country are wondering what is going on in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this debt limit increase bill, but I 
would urge my colleagues to remember that we are not finished with the 
budget and that the American people are watching and that they know 
what the real issues are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation which contains judicial review of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act [RFA].
  This is an issue which I have been heavily involved in for nearly 5 
years, when I was first elected to Congress in 1991. At that time, one 
of the top concerns I heard about from my constituents was the burden 
of excessive Federal regulations. Small businesses in particular felt 
that the money and time they spent complying with rules and regulations 
handed down from the Federal Government were crippling their ability to 
complete and invest in productive activity. In the 4\1/2\ years since I 
was elected, these concerns have only increased.
  When I was elected, I looked for ways to reduce unnecessary 
regulation. I found that way back in 1980 Congress passed, and 
President Carter signed into law, the RFA. Simply put, the RFA required 
Federal regulators to conduct an analysis of the impact of any proposed 
new regulation could have on small businesses and small governmental 
entities. The RFA required the regulators to seek corrective ways to 
minimize the impact of those proposed rules before they are finalized.
  Despite the good intentions of the RFA, the act has been almost 
totally ignored by Federal regulators for the 16 years its has been on 
the books. When I looked further into this issue, I found that Federal 
agencies were routinely using a loophole in the law which allows then 
to publish a statement in the Federal Register certifying that their 
regulation does not affect a significant number of small entities, and 
therefore allowing the agency to avoid conducing the analyses required 
by the RFA. In fact, I found that RFA analyses are rarely conducted, 
even when a regulation clearly would have a major impact on the small 
entities being regulated.
  Herein lies the achilles heel of the RFA. When an agency certifies 
that a regulation will not significantly affect small entities, that 
certification cannot be challenged in court. A small business owner is 
prohibited from asking the courts to review whether the Federal agency 
has complied with the RFA. It is because the agencies know their 
decision to ignore the RFA cannot be challenged that they almost always 
do ignore the act. This fact has been confirmed to me as I have met 
with dozens of small business organizations and hundreds of small 
business owners over the past 4 years to discuss this issue. A number 
of hearings have been held in both the Small Business Committee and the 
Judiciary Committee and scores of witnesses have convinced me and many 
others in Congress that without judicial review, the Federal regulators 
will continue to ignore the RFA.
  Many of us talk about reducing the cost which Government regulations 
impost on the American economy, but with passage of this

[[Page H3017]]

legislation this Congress is actually doing something about it. We are 
living up to our campaign promises to make the Government less 
intrusive, less burdensome on the private sector. We will make 
Government regulations more sensible, more responsive to those who must 
comply with them. And we will do it without jeopardizing the 
environment, or public health and safety.
  Many of this issues we debate in Congress have become polarized by 
partisanship and deep philosophical differences. But this issue, 
providing judicial review of the RFA, is a fine example of how both 
parties can identify a problem which the American people want us to 
fix, and how we can work together, both Republicans and Democrats, to 
solve a problem and help the American people. I am proud to have worked 
in a bipartisan fashion with Jan Meyers, Ike Skelton, and John LaFalce 
for 4 years to pass judicial review of the RFA. Working together, we 
convinced over 250 Members of the last Congress to cosponsor our 
legislation, and have passed RFA judicial review with overwhelming 
majorities in the House. We have put aside our partisan differences to 
pass this commonsense legislation.

  The Republican Congress and President Clinton, who have disagreed on 
so many issues, have come together in support of providing judicial 
review of the RFA. Vice President Gore's Reinventing Government 
Commission recommended providing RFA judicial review as its top 
priority for the Small Business Administration. RFA judicial review was 
again a top recommendation of the White House Conference on Small 
Business conducted last year. We have received letters pledging strong 
support for RFA judicial review from the President, Chief of Staff Leon 
Panetta, and SBA Administrator Philip Lader. I would like to request 
consent to include those letters in the Record. Mr. Jere Glover, the 
administration's chief advocate for small business, has been a strong 
supporter of judicial review and his influence has been very important.
  Virtually every national small business organization has been 
strongly supportive of RFA judicial review, but a handful of groups 
have been active participants of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
coalition for the past 4 years, and have made this issue a top priority 
for their members. I would like to recognize these organizations for 
their outstanding work and commitment to passing this legislation. Jim 
Morrison, Benson Goldstein and Becky Anderson of the National 
Association for the Self Employed have provided invaluable 
institutional knowledge about how the RFA can and should work. David 
Voight of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also provided great 
institutional knowledge about the RFA, and the Chamber has lent 
considerable clout to this legislation. The National Federation of 
Independent Business, and their employees Nelson Litterst and Kent 
Knutson, have worked endlessly to mobilize hundreds of thousands of 
small businesses in support of this legislation. Both the NFIB and the 
Chamber of Commerce have included Reg Flex votes in their ``Key Vote'' 
programs which have been extremely important in informing Members of 
Congress about how important this issue is to their small business 
constituents. Craig Brightup and the National Roofing Contractors 
Association have made this issue a top priority from the very 
beginning, and in fact was the first small business organization to 
bring this issue to my attention. Marcel Dubois and the American 
Trucking Associations have been extremely active in mobilizing small 
businesses in support of RFA judicial review. Finally, Tom Halicki of 
the National Association of Towns and Townships has played a critical 
role in bringing to the attention of Congress the importance of 
judicial review not only to small businesses, but to small governmental 
bodies as well.
  Finally, I want to thank Representatives Meyers, LaFalce, and Skelton 
and their staff, particularly Harry Katrichis of the Small Business 
Committee, and Eric Nicoll of my staff for their persistent dedication 
to passing this legislation over the past 4 years.


                                Small Business Administration,

                                                  October 8, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: The Administration supports strong 
     judicial review of agency determinations under the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act that will permit small businesses to 
     challenge agencies and receive strong remedies when agencies 
     do not comply with the protections afforded by this important 
     statute.
       In fact, the National Performance Review publicly endorsed 
     this policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and 
     the regulatory and paperwork burdens on small businesses, 
     states, and other entities are reduced.
       As Chairman of the Policy Committee of the National 
     Performance Review, under Vice President Gore's leadership I 
     vigorously advocate this position. I have continued to 
     champion this policy within the Administration.
       If confirmed as Administrator of the U.S. Small Business 
     Administration, I will join the Congress and the small 
     business community in continued efforts to pass legislation 
     for such judicial review.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue to 
     small business.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Philip Lader,
     Administrator-Designate.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 7, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: Your particular question about the 
     Administration's position on judicial review of actions taken 
     under the Regulatory Flexibility Act has come to my 
     attention.
       As you have discussed with Senator Bumpers, the 
     Administration supports such judicial review of ``Reg Flex.''
       The Administration supports a strong judicial review 
     provision that will permit small businesses to challenge 
     agencies and receive meaningful redress when they choose to 
     ignore the protections afforded by this important statute.
       In fact, the National Performance Review endorsed this 
     policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the 
     regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states, 
     and other entities are reduced.
       Ironically, Phil Lader, our nominee for Administrator of 
     the Small Business Administration (whose nomination was voted 
     favorably today by a 22-0 vote of the Senate Small Business 
     Committee) has been a principal champion of judicial review 
     of ``Reg Flex.'' In his capacity as Chairman of the Policy 
     Committee on the National Performance Review, Phil vigorously 
     advocated this position. I know that, if confirmed, as SBA 
     Administrator, he would join us in continued efforts to win 
     Congressional support for such judicial review.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
     Chief of Staff.
                                                                    ____



                                           The Vice President,

                                     Washington, November 1, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas W. Ewing,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ewing: Thank you for contracting me 
     regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
       As the President and I have made clear, we strongly support 
     judicial review of agency determinations rendered under the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Act. We remain committed to securing 
     this important reform during the next Congress and will work 
     with Congress for the enactment of strong judicial review for 
     small businesses.
       We also understand that it will be important to continue 
     our work with small businesses to ensure that such an 
     amendment provides a sensible, reasonable, and rational 
     approach to judicial review, as recommended by the National 
     Performance Review. As you know, the National Performance 
     Review recommended that which was (and continues to be) 
     sought by the small business community--i.e., an amendment 
     that furthers the intent of the Act and reduces the paperwork 
     burdens on small businesses.
       The President and I look forward to working with Congress 
     on this matter and appreciate your leadership in this area.
           Sincerely,
     Al Gore.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 8, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: My Administration strongly supports 
     judicial review of agency determinations under the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Act, and I appreciate your leadership over the 
     past years in fighting for this reform on behalf of small 
     business owners.
       Although legislation establishing such review was not 
     enacted during the 103rd Congress, my Administration remains 
     committed to securing this very important reform. Toward that 
     end, my Administration will continue to work with the 
     Congress and the small business community next year for 
     enactment of a strong judicial review that will permit small 
     businesses to challenge agencies and receive meaningful 
     redress when agencies ignore the protections afforded by this 
     statute.
       As you know, the National Performance Review endorsed this 
     policy to ensure that the Act's intent is achieved and the 
     regulatory and paperwork burdens on small business, states, 
     and other entities are reduced.
       Again, thank you for your continued leadership in this 
     area.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3136, the 
Contract With America Advancement Act, which includes language to raise 
the amount of money a senior citizen may earn before losing Social 
Security benefits. Twice before I have supported this legislation; in 
the Senior Citizens' Equity Act, and in the Senior Citizens Right to 
Work Act. Support of this legislation is my commitment to the senior 
citizens of my district to remove the disincentive to continue working 
after they begin receiving their Social Security benefits.

[[Page H3018]]

Increasing the Social Security earnings limit from $11,520 to $30,000 
will significantly improve benefits for moderate- and middle-income 
beneficiaries who work out of necessity, not choice. It will also 
remove the penalty on those with income from work, but not from other 
sources such as dividends and interest. I urge my colleagues to help 
our Nation's seniors by voting for this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Senior 
Citizens' Right to Work Act which has been included in H.R. 3136. This 
bill will encourage seniors between the ages of 65 to 69 to work by 
eliminating financial penalties on hardworking seniors who want to 
supplement meager Social Security benefits. I strongly urge all of my 
colleagues to support H.R. 3136 and our senior citizens by increasing 
the Social Security earnings limit.
  The Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act also contains a provision 
which will eliminate Social Security disability benefits to drug 
addicts and alcoholics. While I adamantly support this provision, I 
would like to voice my concern about the fraud and abuse that will 
occur as a result. Given past abuses in the SSI and SSDI programs, we 
must be alert to the likelihood that many of these drug addicts and 
alcoholics currently on Federal disability rolls will attempt to 
requalify for Social Security benefits under other disability 
categories. I believe that more can and should be done to ensure 
accountability in these programs, eliminate fraud and abuse, and save 
Federal dollars.
   Mr. Chairman, we should support referral and monitoring agency 
programs that currently use national case tracking systems to identify 
drug addicts and alcoholics who are improperly receiving Federal 
checks. These types of programs have already saved the Federal 
taxpayers millions of dollars that would have been spent as a result of 
the fraudulent practices of drug addicts and alcoholics. Unfortunately, 
this legislation, in eliminating the drug addiction and alcoholism 
benefit category, will also eliminate these types of tracking programs. 
I hope that we can correct this blow to current fraud and abuse 
monitoring practices in order to ensure that drug addicts and 
alcoholics do not find a way around the major accomplishments we are 
achieving today.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, small manufacturing businesses 
striving to meet Federal regulatory requirements must have access to 
the technological information they need to comply with Federal and 
State laws and regulations. Therefore, I am pleased that the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act title of this conference report makes it clear that any 
Federal agency with the requisite expertise is empowered to help in 
this effort. I am especially pleased that the Manufacturing Extension 
Program [MEP] of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
will continue to provide its full menu of services in southern 
California and throughout the Nation.
  Those of us who have worked to promote the concept of technology 
extension over the years are well aware of the unique roles played by 
the Small Business Development Centers [SBDC], the Agricultural 
Extension Service, and other specialized programs in helping small 
business. Each of these programs, however, has limited funding; even 
when they are all putting forth their best efforts, there may not be 
enough resources to go around. If small business people are required to 
take time away from production to comply with environmental and other 
standards, we want them to locate the help to do so as readily as 
possible, whether that help comes from the Small Business 
Administration, the Department of Commerce, or the Department of 
Agriculture.
  Given that SBDC's have a broad mission to serve all small business, 
specialized programs like the MEP are often best situated to meet the 
regulatory compliance needs of small manufacturers. In my native 
southern California, for example, there are many excellent examples 
where the MEP provided help to small businesses that no SBDC could have 
been expected to provide. Our region is blessed by a large number of 
small manufacturers, including defense subcontractors, who need very 
specialized assistance to meet California's air and water quality 
standards. This led the MEP to set up the Los Angeles Pollution 
Prevention Center, which provides the specialized environmental 
engineering expertise both to companies and also to other manufacturing 
extension centers.

  Let me give some specific examples. Without this center, it would 
have been extremely difficult for Nelson Name Plate, a small 
manufacturer of metal and plastic nameplates, to survive the mandated 
phase-out of chemicals it was using for cleaning its brass stock. The 
center helped Nelson implement a closed loop, customized cleaning 
system which required no modification of its sanitation permits. The 
Pollution Prevention Center also permitted Art-Craft, a 20-person firm 
in the Santa Barbara area, to identify a waterborne primer for painting 
aircraft which met the exacting standards of both Boeing and the Clean 
Air Act and to develop the monitoring system it needed to show 
compliance. It helped CUI, a medical prosthesis company, to replace a 
curing process using ozone-depleting chemicals with a low-cost, 
solvent-free process that led to reductions both in hazardous wastes 
and air emissions.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly it is in the Nation's interest to write our laws 
so that small businesses can provide good jobs and high-quality 
products while complying fully with environmental and other important 
regulations. I thank the conferees on this Title for avoiding a 
legislative turf fight and for allowing the MEP to continue one of its 
most important missions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it is with reluctance that I will vote in 
favor of this bill before us today.
  For almost 6 months, this Nation's good faith and credit has been 
questioned due to the failure of the Republican majority to complete 
its budgetary responsibilities.
  Apparently, my Republican colleagues have come to their senses and 
will end their last minute, stop gap extensions of the Government's 
ability to meet its obligations to bond holders and Social Security 
recipients.
  However, while my colleagues are acting to prevent default they have 
attached a number of controversial provisions to this must-pass 
legislation--namely, some of the bill's regulatory reform language as 
well as line-item veto authority for the President.
  Let me be clear, while I am concerned with some of the regulatory 
reform provisions included in this bill, I support regulatory reform.
  I am pleased that legislation to provide judicial review of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act is finally on its way to becoming law.
  Small businesses have been working to pass this legislation for 
years, and it will give real teeth to the small business protections in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. My subcommittee marked up this 
legislation last year, and this will be the second time a version of 
this legislation has passed the House.
  However, there are other regulatory reform-related provisions in the 
debt ceiling bill that were never considered by the Judiciary 
Committee, nor any other House committee.
  These provisions were not in H.R. 3136 as introduced. Instead, these 
items were slipped into a manager's amendment that was adopted by 
passage of the rule. Moreover, they are not identical to the provisions 
that passed the Senate as part of Senator Bond's bill, S. 942.
  For example, one of the non-Senate provisions requires the chief 
counsel of the SBA to select individuals representative of affected 
small entities who would review a proposed rule before it is available 
to the public at large and lobby for changes. These individuals could 
be campaign contributors of special interest representatives. This 
provision has been limited to OSHA and EPA rules, since apparently the 
majority realized what havoc it would wreak if certain politically 
connected individuals were able to preview IRS, SEC, and other rules--
and were thus able to restructure their financial transactions, for 
example.
  Many of the regulatory reform provisions in the bill are meritorious 
and are based on S. 942. However, that is no reason to circumvent the 
deliberative legislative process. We ought to review these provisions 
in committee and work on a bipartisan basis to evaluate and improve 
upon them instead of slipping them in to must pass legislation.
  If my colleagues are not concerned with some of the provisions of the 
regulatory reform language in H.R. 3136, I would urge them to consider 
the implications of the line-item veto section of this bill.
  I am concerned with wasteful spending, and I have voted to cut a 
multitude of unneeded programs like the superconducting supercollider 
and the advanced liquid rocket motor.
  However, I am opposed to the line-item veto because it would disrupt 
the checks and balances of the Constitution. Currently, the President 
has the power to veto any legislation and Congress can attempt to 
override this veto. A line-item veto would severely inhibit the 
legislative branch's say in the spending priorities of this Nation.
  The line-item veto sounds innocuous enough, but the people of a small 
State like Rhode Island know full well what giving the President the 
authority to pick and choose budget items means.
  Indeed, Rhode Island has experienced a Presidential effort through 
existing executive branch authority to eliminate an essential program.
  In 1992, President Bush tried to rescind funding for the Seawolf 
submarine program which is vital to our Nation's defense and is the 
livelihood of thousands of working Rhode Islanders.
  Fortunately, Democrats beat back this attempt, but I am concerned 
that the line-item provision before us would make future battles closer 
to a Sisyphean battle than a fair fight. For example, a President--of 
any political party--could use the line-item veto to eliminate other 
programs that are important to Rhode Island without fear because a 
small State like mine only has four votes in Congress.

[[Page H3019]]

  I would argue that it was this fear of retribution which motivated 
the Founding Fathers to give the legislative branch the power of the 
purse and restrict the President's veto powers.
  Regrettably, the line-item veto before us today, would grossly 
distort the Constitution's delicate balance of power and tilt it to the 
President, and I cannot support such a shift with the interests of my 
State in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, I will support this bill because it 
is imperative that we prevent the Government from defaulting on 
obligations made many years ago.
  In addition, I will also vote for this legislation because it 
contains provisions that would increase the amount of income that 
Social Security recipients can earn without losing any benefits.
  Under current law, Social Security recipients between the ages of 65 
and 69 can earn up to $11,520 in 1996 without having their benefits 
reduced. Each $3 in wages earned in excess of this limit results in a 
deduction of $1 in Social Security benefits.
  This legislation gradually increases the amount seniors under age 70 
can earn without losing any benefits to $30,000 by the year 2002.
  I support increasing the Social Security earnings test and voted in 
favor of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, which included this 
increase. The House overwhelmingly passed this bill on December 5, 1995 
by a vote of 411 to 4.
  Approximately 1 million of the 42 million Social Security recipients 
are expected to benefit from this increase in the earnings limit.
  Increasing the earnings test will help improve the overall economic 
situation of low and middle income seniors in Rhode Island who work out 
of necessity, not by choice. For example, a Rhode Island senior 
currently making $12,500 loses almost $330 in Social Security benefits. 
With the increase included in the legislation before us, that senior 
would not lose any benefits.
  Our seniors have the skills, expertise, and enthusiasm that employers 
value, and they should be encouraged to work and contribute, not 
penalized for it.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe I have a duty to prevent the 
default of the U.S. Government and I will support H.R. 3136, but I 
would urge my Republican colleagues to stop using important budget 
legislation as a vehicle for pet causes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 391, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means with an instruction to report the bill back to 
     the House forthwith with the following amendment: Add at the 
     end of section 331(b) the following:
       The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only apply 
     during periods when the minimum wage under section 6(a)(1) of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act is not less than $4.70 an hour 
     during the year beginning on July 4, 1996 and not less than 
     $5.15 an hour after July 3, 1997.


                             point of order

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I make, actually, two points of order: a 
point of order that the motion to recommit with instructions is not 
germane to the bill; and, second, that the motion to recommit with 
instructions constitutes an unfunded intergovernmental mandate under 
section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  I would ask that a ruling first be made on the point of order against 
germaneness, on the basis of germaneness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] desire to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BONIOR. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] on the point of order.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very broad in its scope. This 
bill provides that the President be given a line-item veto authority. 
This bill provides for an increase in the amount Social Security 
recipients could earn before their Social Security benefits are 
reduced. Third, it allows small businesses to seek judicial review of 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has to do with taxpayers. There is nothing 
more important to taxpayers and citizens in this country than to be 
able to have revenues in their pockets. What we are offering and what 
we are suggesting under this motion to recommit is that we be given the 
chance to vote on the increase in the minimum wage, which has not been 
raised for the past 5 years. The minimum wage is a very important part 
of a variety of laws in this country that deal with ability of people 
to make ends meet. People today have incomes----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] to speak on the point of order, and keep his 
remarks confined to what is pending.
  Mr. BONIOR. I would say to the Speaker that the minimum wage is 
directly related to the interest of small business in our country 
today.
  The third piece of this bill that was added in the Committee on Rules 
allows small business to seek judicial review of regulations. In that 
sense, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that those people who are affiliated 
with small business on the employment side ought to have redress to 
getting a decent wage in this country. You cannot live and raise a 
family on $9,000 a year or less. We are asking millions of Americans to 
do that. This bill will provide an opportunity for----
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, may we have regular order on the debate on 
the point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
Michigan is reminded to confine his remarks to the germaneness of the 
point of order as raised by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BONIOR. Let me just add another point to my argument, Mr. 
Speaker, on a more technical ground, because I am not able, under the 
admonition of the Speaker, and the proper admonition, I would say, to 
talk about the substance, which deals with giving people a fair wage in 
this country. So I will talk about subtitle c of the bill that requires 
that the Department of Labor certify whether any of its rules, 
including rules governing the minimum wage, where a small business 
could go to court seeking a stay of the Department of Labor's rules 
governing the minimum wage.
  It seems to me that, because of the addition of that subsection and 
the broadening of the bill, the minimum wage indeed is in order as a 
discussion point in a motion to recommit.
  I would further add, Mr. Speaker, that my recommittal motion is 
logically relevant to the bill and establishes a condition that is 
logically relevant to subtitle c. Under the House precedent, my motion, 
I think, meets this test. If we are meeting the test for employers, if 
we are meeting the test for seniors, it seems to me we ought to be 
meeting the test for those women, primarily, millions of them raising 
kids on their own making less than $8,000 a year. They ought to be 
given the chance to have this debated and voted on by the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, wages are important, they are stagnant in this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
will suspend.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I regret again that I must ask for regular 
order. The gentleman wants to wander afield and to debate the substance 
of the motion to recommit, which is improper at this moment in the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has observed that the gentleman is 
to confine his remarks to the point of order, and not the substance.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend from Texas and to 
the Speaker for wandering. I have difficulty not talking emotionally 
about this issue because of what I see in the country. But I will 
confine my remarks to subsection c of the bill that requires

[[Page H3020]]

that the Department of Labor certify. And I would tell my friend from 
Texas, the Department of Labor has to certify whether any of its rules, 
including rules governing the minimum wage. And that, it seems to me, 
is the direct connection in this bill with the needs of working people 
in this country who are working for a minimum wage and deserve to have 
the opportunity to have that wage increase.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on my point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order on germaneness first and, subsequent to the ruling on that point 
of order, be heard on the second point of order on intergovernmental 
mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not germane because it seeks 
to introduce material within the jurisdiction of a committee that is 
not dealt with in this bill. That is, the subject of the amendment, the 
minimum wage falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities, while the subject matter of the bill 
falls only within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Rules, the Committee on 
the Judiciary, the Committee on Small Business, and the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  In addition, the motion to recommit seeks to amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, which is not amended by this bill.
  Finally, there is the gentleman's argument about rulemaking. The 
rulemaking authority under this bill is general and not agency 
specific. Therefore, the motion to recommit is not germane to the bill 
and should be ruled out of order on that basis.
  Mr. ENGEL. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] 
wish to be heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer]?
  Mr. ENGEL. Yes; I would.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I think it is disingenuous 
and outrageous to say that the minority leader's point of order is not 
in order here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle 
can debate substance at another point in time. This debate now is on 
the point of order, and they should be told to restrain their comments 
on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is correct. The 
Chair would remind the gentleman from New York, as he reminded the 
minority whip, that he is to confine his remarks to the question of 
germaneness as raised on the point of order by the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me, if we are debating this 
bill on raising the debt ceiling limit, that something to do with the 
minimum wage is about as germane to the debt ceiling limit lifting as 
the line-item veto is and as allowing seniors to make more money for 
Social Security purposes. I cannot see why one would not be germane and 
why these other things are germane. In fact, we should have a clean 
lifting of the debt ceiling and then we would not have to worry about 
germaneness after all.
  So it would seem to me that we cannot on the one hand attach all 
kinds of extraneous things to the lifting of the debt ceiling and then 
on the other hand claim that the minimum wage is not at least as 
relevant to the lifting of the debt ceiling as the line-item veto and 
senior citizens are. I just do not think it is fair if we are going to 
talk about playing by fair rules. I think we ought to be fair. While 
they may want to stifle free speech on the other side of the aisle, I 
think we have a right to ask for equity here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point 
of order raised by the gentleman from Texas on germaneness. The 
gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the amendment proposed 
in a motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Michigan is not 
germane to the bill. The text of germaneness in the case of a motion to 
recommit with instructions is a relationship of those instructions to 
the bill as a whole.
  The pending bill permanently increases the debt limit. It also 
comprehensively addresses several other unrelated programs, 
specifically, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, which amends the 
Social Security Act, the Line-Item Veto Act, which amends the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, and the Small 
Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, which amends the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the Small Business Act, and it establishes 
congressional review of agency rulemaking.
  The motion does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. The motion 
does not directly amend the laws that go directly to the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  The Chair would cite to page 600 of the Manual the following: An 
amendment that conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill 
by adopting as a measure of their availability the monthly increases in 
the debt limit may be germane so long as the amendment does not 
directly affect other provisions of law or impose unrelated 
contingencies.
  Therefore, the Chair rules that this motion is germane and overrules 
that point of order.


                    unfunded mandate point of order

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my second point of order that the 
motion to recommit with instructions constitutes an unfunded 
governmental mandate under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act. 
Section 425 prohibits consideration of a measure containing unfunded 
intergovernmental mandates whose total unfunded direct costs exceeds 
$50 million annually. The precise language in question is the text of 
the instructions that amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase 
the minimum wage.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in the 
minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 would exceed the threshold amount 
under the rule of $50 million. In fact, CBO estimates that it would 
impose an unfunded mandate burden of over $1 billion over 5 years.
  Let me also point out that CBO estimates that this provision would 
result in a 0.5- to 2-percent reduction in the employment level of 
teenagers and a smaller percentage reduction for young adults. These 
would produce employment losses of roughly 100,000 to 500,000 jobs. 
Therefore, I urge the Chair to sustain this point of order, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the consideration of this unfunded 
mandate on State and local governments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas makes a point of 
order that the motion violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the 
gentleman has met his threshold burden to identify the specific 
language of the motion. Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and a Member opposed will each 
control 10 minutes of debate on the point of order.
  Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after debate on the point 
of order, the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: 
Will the House now consider the motion?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is indeed ironic that a point of order would be made 
on this particular motion on the basis that this provides an additional 
burden on small businesses in this country. That is from our 
perspective not accurate, not fair. Let me take the accuracy argument 
first.
  Every study recently done in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania, in 
California, has come to the conclusion that an increase in the minimum 
wage which has not been increased in 5 years, which is at $4.25 an 
hour, which is at its lowest level in 40 years, would not only, Mr. 
Speaker, would not only not cost businesses, would not cost jobs, it 
would

[[Page H3021]]

add jobs. That is what some of these studies have said. Over 100 
economists, three Nobel laureates, have suggested it is way past the 
time that we raise the minimum wage for these folks who have chosen 
work over welfare, 70 percent of them who are adults, many of them 
single women with children who need to have more money in their pockets 
so that they can survive and so they can live in dignity and teach 
their children that work indeed does pay in this country.
  That is what we are all about here, making work pay. Five years ago 
we passed a similar bill, 90 cents over 2 years, which President Bush 
supported. Some of my friends on this side of the aisle support it. And 
here we are again, 5 years later, people struggling to make ends meet, 
having to work because they are getting paid the minimum wage and in 
various parts of this country having to work overtime in some jobs, 
having to work two or three jobs; fathers who cannot come home at night 
and be with their kids for athletic events, who are not there for PTA 
meetings; mothers who have to work overtime who are not there reading 
them bedtime stories, teaching their kids right from wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about. This issue is more than 
about wages. This is about community. This is about family.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than increasing the 
wages of the 80 percent of Americans in this society today who have not 
seen an increase since 1979.

                              {time}  1415

  Since 1979, 98 percent of all income growth in America has gone to 
the top 20 percent. The other 80 percent got 2 percent of that growth. 
So the minimum wage, while it will not help all of those 80 percent, 
will help some of them and it will help the people who are above the 
minimum wage a little bit. But it more importantly will circulate money 
throughout the economy, and the more money people have, the more they 
spend at the hardware store, the more they spend at the grocery store.
  This indeed is necessary for us to do justice to those who are 
working in this society today and who have been denied economic justice 
for too long. So I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a 
violation of the unfunded mandates bill. This is a funding of the 
mandates of people to take care of their families. That is what this is 
about, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this clearly is an unfunded mandate on State and local 
government. It is the very thing that this Congress overwhelmingly 
passed a law to prevent last year. It will significantly increase the 
cost of State and local government. If the Federal Government is to do 
that by its own legislation, it has an obligation to reimburse the 
State and local governments. That is not mandatory that we do that, but 
we took the position that it was inappropriate for us to do that. That 
is why we are having this debate today, because of the unfunded mandate 
legislation that was passed and signed into law by the President last 
year.
  In addition, it places an unfunded mandate of unquantified amount on 
employers, which was also part of the law that we passed on a 
bipartisan basis and signed by the President of the United States last 
year. Here already the provisions of that law are to be tested. Did we 
really mean it? Well, if this motion to recommit passes, it will say to 
the American people we did not really mean it.
  I do not think that is an appropriate thing for this Congress to do. 
CBO estimates that the potential loss of jobs will range, will reduce 
the employment level of teenagers and a smaller percentage reduction of 
young adults, reducing by a half a percent to 2 percent in the 
employment level of those types of individuals. They would produce 
employment losses of 90 cents per hour, increasing the minimum wage. 
From roughly 100,000 to 500,000 jobs, that 90-cent-per-hour increase 
will cost employment that much.
  I urge a positive vote on the point of order on unfunded mandates, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us say what this really is. This is an attempt by 
the Republican majority not to allow the whole issue of minimum wage, 
of raising the minimum wage for American workers to come to the floor. 
I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. We 
cannot get that bill to come to committee. The Republican leadership 
has blocked it. We cannot get that bill to come to the floor. The 
Republican leadership has blocked it.
  They could care less about raising the minimum wage. They expect 
people to work at a $4.25 an hour standard, which is less than people 
who are on welfare are getting. So much for welfare reform. They claim 
they are for welfare reform, but they do not want to pay someone who 
wants to work for a living a decent wage. Apparently they think coolie 
wages is what we should do, $4.25 an hour. This would simply raise it 
to $5.15.
  The last raise was 5 years ago. Workers' moneys in terms of what they 
make on minimum wage are at a 40-year low. Is there no decency? Do we 
not care about what people who are trying to work for a living do?
  The Republican majority does not want this to come to a vote. I may 
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are they afraid 
of? All we are saying is that the minimum wage ought to be raised from 
$4.25 to $5.15. We owe it to America's workers to do this. This is 
simple decency. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that the vote 
will pass and that people on your side of the aisle, some of them, may 
even vote for it?
  There has been an attempt to block this bill from being in the 
committee and from being on the floor. We cannot get a vote. All we are 
saying is let us vote up or down whether or not the minimum wage should 
be raised. That is all we are asking and that is all we want here this 
afternoon.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
will state it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Would the Speaker please explain to the House how this 
vote will be framed and what a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote will mean, 
because this is the first time that we have had a test of the unfunded 
mandate legislation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question will be put by the Chair, to 
wit, will the House now consider the motion to recommit? So an ``aye'' 
vote would mean that the House should indeed consider the motion to 
recommit. A ``no'' vote would mean that the House would not consider 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, would it be fair to say that a ``no'' vote 
then would sustain the point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. Mr. Speaker, 
may I be heard?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The statute provides that on this point of 
order the House shall decide that question and not a ruling from the 
Chair on whether to consider the motion. It would not be a prerogative 
of the Chair to make that judgment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that I think a ``yes'' 
vote on this matter would in effect be saying that we would allow an 
unfunded mandate to be passed through, or open the door to passing 
through, an unfunded mandate to the States.
  Those who would want to sustain the unfunded mandate legislation, and 
this is our first look at this thing, the first time we have had to 
consider this procedure, those who want to sustain that should vote 
``no'' on this measure.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members are watching this debate 
because this is the first time that we have had this kind of vote in 
the 104th Congress, and I am urging a ``no'' vote on this particular 
motion.
  I hope Members will really take a look at what is happening here. 
This is blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy.

[[Page H3022]]

The gentleman from New York who just spoke before I did said in his 
speech that we owe the American workers this vote and we owe the 
American workers to raise the minimum wage. Where did he get that? I 
submit he got that from the convention that was just held in this town 
by the AFL-CIO who said that they would raise over $35 million to take 
this majority out.
  That is what this vote is all about. This group over here on this 
side of the aisle has been screaming and yelling for the last many 
weeks.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman's words be taken 
down. He used the word ``hypocrisy.''

                              {time}  1425

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
report the last words by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       The gentleman from New York, who just spoke before I did, 
     said in his speech that we owe the American workers this vote 
     and we owe the American workers to raise the minimum wage. I 
     submit he got that from the convention that was just held in 
     this town by the AFL-CIO, who said that they would raise over 
     $35 million to take this majority out. That is what this vote 
     is all about. This group over here on this side of the aisle 
     has been screaming and yelling for the last many weeks.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not believe that anything in 
those remarks constitutes any personal reference to any other Member of 
this body.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk needs to go back farther, because 
there was reference and the use of the word ``hypocrite,'' and the 
Clerk has not gone back far enough to pick up the words that I objected 
to. The word ``hypocrisy'' was used, excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that on 
points such as that, the point of order from the gentleman making the 
point of order has to be timely. The Clerk has gone back several 
sentences to transcribe what the gentleman had said, and the 
gentleman's demand certainly was not timely in this instance.
  The gentleman from Texas may proceed with his remarks.


                             point of order

  Mr. BONIOR. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, that dialog that I am referring to could not 
have taken more than 30 seconds, and it seems to me that I was indeed 
timely when I rose to my feet as the gentleman was completing his idea, 
which included referring to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] 
with the term ``hypocrisy.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents set, those points of 
order raised by the gentleman have to be on a timely basis. This is 
precedent that has been set in this body for a number of years where 
there are intervening remarks that you are alluding to. So the Chair 
rules that the gentleman from Texas may proceed.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                 motion to table offered by mr. archer

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of 
the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] to lay on the table the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
they ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 185, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 99]

                               AYES--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fowler
     Frost
     Hayes
     Martinez
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Tejeda
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams

[[Page H3023]]

                              {time}  1453

  So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the 
Chair was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Speaker, I was at the White House on official 
business and missed vote No. 99. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  I ask that my statement appear in the Record immediately after the 
vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Under the order 
of business, the debate is on a point of order by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer].
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip, has 1 minute 
remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, all I was trying to say was is it not 
interesting that we are having a motion on the floor, 3 days after the 
AFL-CIO had a convention calling for an increase in the minimum wage 
and promising to raise $35 million by assessing their membership more 
of their hard-earned wages, to take out the majority that is trying to 
allow working families to keep more of their hard-earned wages?
  I hope everyone that was outraged by the gun vote last week will vote 
``no'' on this, because we were accused of the same thing.
  Is it not also interesting that we have heard time and time again 
that we have not had enough hearings in this body; that we have to look 
at these issues, hold hearings on these issues. yet we have the 
Democrats bringing a motion to the floor that wants to do away with the 
unfunded mandate legislation that was passed by the Senate and debated 
in less than 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing I would like to do 
is remind all Members that our balanced budget provides an instant 
raise for workers in the form of lower taxes, reduced interest rates, 
and greater economic growth.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, do we have the balanced budget before us to 
speak on? What is the issue which the speakers in the well should 
address?

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The House is 
debating whether to consider the motion to recommit; the question that 
the House is debating right now is whether the pending recommittal 
motion should be considered.
  Mr. VOLKMER. A recommittal motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Whether to consider a recommittal motion.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Whether to consider a recommittal motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, our balanced budget provides an instant 
raise for workers in the form of lower taxes, reduced interest costs, 
and greater economic opportunity which will lead to higher wages for 
America's workers.
  Let me assure Members that the committee of jurisdiction will look at 
the overall picture as to why in the last 3 years we have had a very 
stagnant economy, which has resulted in a very stagnant growth in 
relationship to wages and benefits. We will look at the overall 
picture. We will see whether it is unfunded mandates, such as one that 
was proposed today. We will look to see whether it is regulatory reform 
that is needed. But we will not look at a single issue because the 
issue is all-encompassing and we have to look at every piece of that 
and we will do it in a conference. We will do it in committee. We will 
do it in hearings. But we will not be rushed to do something that will, 
in fact, stagnate the economy even more. We cannot afford to grow at 1 
percent or less, or we will never get out of this stagnated economy 
that we are presently in.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the leadership of this 
House would suggest that requesting an increase in the minimum wage for 
American workers is an unfunded mandate. If we follow that logic, 
adhere to it, then this body would not be able to do anything to 
protect the health and welfare of the American people.
  We just heard it said that the so-called balanced budget contains 
provisions that will be beneficial to the American workers, tax cuts. 
In fact the opposite is true. We are chopping away at the earned income 
tax credit. We are going to raise taxes for minimum wage people. That 
is what my colleagues are going to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people need an increase in their wages. 
They need an increase in wage. They have come to this Congress and 
asked for it. The last time this Congress authorized an increase in 
their salary was 1989. They are falling way behind. At the rate of this 
minimum wage, a person working full time makes only $8,500 a year. That 
is below the poverty level. The American people need an increase in 
their wage. They have asked for it. We have a responsibility to give it 
to them. Let us give them an increase.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
simply to respond that the Parliamentarian and the Speaker have decided 
that there are adequate grounds, that there is an unfunded mandate in 
this bill, or we would not be having this procedural vote. Let me make 
that very clear. This is a procedural vote. There are adequate grounds 
to establish that there is an unfunded mandate in this bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me correct the gentleman from Texas by suggesting that this is a 
motion to proceed on a vote to have a debate on the minimum wage. That 
is what we are discussing. That is the issue that is before us. The 
question is will we even proceed to discuss this basic fundamental 
economic justice issue of whether people can earn a decent living and 
whether they should move to work as opposed to welfare in this country. 
That is what this is about.
  My friend, and he is my friend, from Texas said and preached to us 
just a few minutes ago about the AFL-CIO wanting this vote. Those 
people do not make the minimum wage. They do not make it because they 
got together. They banded together in unity for a decent wage for 
themselves. They are working for other folks. They are trying to get 
them a decent wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], who is also my friend, says we need to study this. We are 
not going to be rushed. We need to go slow. It is at its 40-year low, 
40-year low, the minimum wage. No hearings have been held in this 
Congress.
  We have got about 30-some days left in the legislative calendar. My 
colleagues do not want a vote. They are blocking a vote. They blocked 
the vote on the minimum wage in the Senate. They are blocking it here 
again in the House. Wages are important to people. We want to put money 
in people's pockets by raising their wages. That is what this issue is 
all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority will find any 
excuse to hurt hard-working middle-class families in this country. 
Today the Republican majority would deny and block a vote to increase 
the minimum wage. Mothers and fathers are working harder, longer hours, 
two and three jobs,

[[Page H3024]]

and have seen their wages not rise but decrease. They scramble to pay 
their bills, to make ends meet at the end of every week. More than two-
thirds of minimum wage workers are 20 years and older, they are not 
teenagers.
  The approximate annual average salary of a minimum wage worker is 
$8,500 a year. It is below the poverty level. It is below the welfare 
level.
  Imagine, this Republican majority says no to a 90 cents increase an 
hour for working families in this country, 90 cents, when they make 
over $130,000 a year.
  That is not justice. It is wrong to happen to working families in 
this country. Shame. Stop the excuses. Let us vote on a minimum wage in 
this House and let us past minimum wage for working families in this 
country.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, as a result of my previous parliamentary 
inquiry to the Chair and to others, that the debate was on the motion 
to recommit to determine whether or not it is an unfunded mandate; is 
that correct or incorrect?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will read from section 426(b) of 
the Budget Act as to what the House is debating: question of 
consideration, ``as disposition of points of order under section 425 or 
subsection (a) of this section, the Chair shall put the question of 
consideration with respect to the proposition that is the subject of 
the points of order.''
  Mr. VOLKMER. The point of order is the motion to recommit is an 
unfunded mandate; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is the point of order.
  Now, the Parliamentarian does not rule on this and we are to vote and 
make an individual decision as to whether or not we believe that this 
is an unfunded mandate if the point of order is proper; is that 
correct, as an individual?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is simply on whether this body 
wants to consider the motion to recommit, notwithstanding the point of 
order.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Notwithstanding the point of order. Therefore, any 
Member can raise a point of order not on the motion to recommit or an 
amendment or anything under this rule, correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only against this motion at this time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Only against the motion.
  Now, should the Members not make a decision based on recommendations 
like the Congressional Budget Office which says this is not an unfunded 
mandate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the 
reason the House is having this debate is so the Members can make up 
their minds on which way they want to vote on this question.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Without listening to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the nature 
of the question we are voting on.
  As I understand it, we are talking about the new rule adopted at the 
beginning of this Congress dealing with what to do when there is an 
unfunded mandate. Would this vote, and this would help, I believe, us 
clarify it, because we have dealt with this once before in my 
recollection, would a vote now to proceed with the minimum wage vote be 
the equivalent of what the House did when we adopted the rule on the 
agriculture bill which waived the unfunded mandate point of order?
  When the House adopted the majority's proposed rule on the 
agriculture bill, it waived the point of order with regard to unfunded 
mandates and allowed us then to proceed on the bill which CBO said had 
unfunded mandates. Are we now being asked to do the same thing; namely, 
take up the bill although CBO does not say there are unfunded mandates 
in there, as we did when we adopted the majority's rule on the 
agriculture bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can only respond that the reason 
the House is having this debate is so the House can make the judgment 
on whether there shall be a vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the previous gentleman mentioned that the 
rule on the agriculture bill waived a point of order with regard to 
unfunded mandates. Is this the blatant politics and blatant hypocrisy 
that the majority whip was referring to?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The Chair would advise Members that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior] has 30 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] has the right to close.
  Mr. BONOIR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this Congress has passed 
huge tax breaks for the rich and for the largest corporations in 
America.
  But somehow, when some of us want to raise the minimum wage for 
millions of American workers, we are told that we are not even allowed 
to have a vote.
  People today are working longer hours for lower wages, and they are 
entitled to a raise. Mr. Speaker, let us raise the minimum wage; more 
importantly, let us have the guts to vote on the issue.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, after years of frustration and months of hard 
work we are here today to do three good things for the American people: 
to give the President of the United States the long-sought line-item 
veto authority the American people wish for him to have, to give the 
senior citizens of America a chance to work in their senior years and 
still retain their Social Security benefits with less prejudice from 
the Government's desire to take their earnings away, their benefits 
away, if they earn money, and to create job opportunities by lessening 
the red tape burden on small business. We are here to do these things 
that the minority, when they were in the majority, would not do, and we 
can complete that work.
  Now we are being asked, and I might say it has been a very colorful 
and entertaining show; we are being asked to go back on the work that 
we did earlier on unfunded mandates and pose an unfunded mandate on the 
communities in our country in order to raise the minimum wage. Is this 
an effort to stop three good things from happening or to do one bad 
thing?
  I was just asked by one of my colleagues a moment ago why is it the 
minority did not raise the minimum wage last year when they had the 
majority in the House, they had the majority in the Senate and they had 
the White House?
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect the reason is that they read page 27 of Time 
magazine on February 6, 1995, where the President was quoted as saying 
that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote, ``the wrong way to raise 
the incomes of low wage earners.'' Perhaps they did not.
  We have had an interesting show, I have been much entertained by it, 
I am sure the Nation has been entertained. But this body belongs to the 
people for serious work.
  I propose that we vote down this motion, get on with our work, and do 
some good things for America rather than punish the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, will the House now consider 
the motion to recommit?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H3025]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 228, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 100]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--228

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fowler
     McNulty
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1537

  Mr. GILMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the negative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the Record 
inaccurate claims made by those on the Republican side of the aisle 
that this motion contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate. The 
fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it does not. They suggested that 
the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this motion 
regarding the minimum wage contained an unfunded mandate. CBO did not 
make any such determination. In fact, CBO has determined just the 
opposite, that this motion does not contain any unfunded mandates. The 
document to which the Republicans referred did not cite this language 
at all but rather referred to a letter written by CBO last year to a 
Member of the other body on another piece of legislation under 
consideration by that Chamber. That legislation contained specific 
language which would have directly increased the minimum wage. To 
equate that legislation with this modest motion is to compare apples 
and oranges--make that grapes and watermelons.
  I want to place at this point in my statement, a letter from the 
Congressional Budget Office that states that this motion does not 
contain an unfunded mandate:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, March 28, 1996.
     Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: As you requested, we have reviewed the 
     motion made by Mr. Bonior to determine whether it contains an 
     intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates 
     Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). The motion would 
     require H.R. 3136, the Contract with America Advancement Act 
     of 1996, to be recommitted to the House Committee on Ways and 
     Means, with instructions to add a new section to the bill. 
     The new section would amend section 331 of Subtitle C to 
     prohibit the administrative proceedings provisions of that 
     subtitle from applying in any period during which the minimum 
     wage was less than $4.70 per hour beginning on July 4, 1996, 
     and $5.15 per hour after July 3, 1997.
       The motion and the new section would not increase the 
     minimum wage, but would make other provisions conditional on 
     such an increase. Subsequent legislation would be necessary 
     to increase the minimum wage. Public Law 104-4 defines an 
     intergovernmental mandate as ``any provision in legislation . 
     . . that would impose an enforceable duty upon state, local, 
     or tribal governments.'' The motion contains no such 
     enforceable duty and thus does not contain an 
     intergovernmental mandate.
       If you wish further details on this matter, we would be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Theresa 
     Gullo.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

  It is very important that the membership of the House of 
Representatives, during this first formal raising of the unfunded 
mandate point-of-order, be aware of this attempt by the Republican 
majority to misuse, confuse, and distort the once laudable intention of 
this law. The unfunded mandates legislation enjoyed widespread bi-
partisan support, passing the House by vote of 394 to 28. I was a 
member of the conference committee and a supporter of this measure. 
Members on both sides of the aisle supported this initiative because of 
growing concern over the imposition of unfunded Federal requirements on 
the public and private sector.
  I am deeply concerned that the unfunded mandates law is being used 
not to curb the past practice of imposing financial burdens on State 
and local government entities and the private sector, but instead to 
stifle debate on certain legislative items.
  During the consideration on the unfunded mandates legislation in 
January 1995, I expressed my concern on the section of the bill that 
implemented this new point-of-order. The legislation specifically 
prevents the Rules Committee from waiving the point-of-order that is 
triggered when there is an unfunded mandate--as defined by Public 104-
4--in any bill, joint resolution, motion, conference report, or 
amendment. Only a small handful of House rules in the history of the 
House of Representatives have been given this special protection. If a 
member raises an unfunded mandates point-of-order, all he or she need 
do is to cite the provision in the measure under debate. There is an 
automatic 20 minutes of debate followed by a vote.
  There is no parliamentary or budgetary ruling and there is no burden 
of proof on the

[[Page H3026]]

Member raising the point-of-order. It does not matter if the point-of-
order is baseless, simply by raising the point-of-order, the House is 
required to vote on whether to consider the text that is challenged. A 
simple majority of the House, for any reason, regardless of whether 
there is any legitimate financial imposition or not, can deny the 
opportunity of a Member to proceed with an otherwise germane and viable 
legislative measure. I raised the concern at that time that this could 
be used both to stop legislation not containing unfunded mandates from 
being considered on the floor and as a dilatory tactic to disrupt the 
legislative process. I was always assured that this would not be used 
for this purpose. Even then, however, I did not anticipate that the 
very first use of this tactic would be to deny the minority the right 
to offer an entirely legitimate and germane motion to recommit.
  One of the Republican leadership's first changes to the House rules 
on the 104th Congress guaranteed the minority the right to recommit 
with instructions. In fact, during the 102d and 103d Congresses in 
particular, we in the majority were crudely accused of ``raping the 
rights of the minority'' by, on rare occasion, denying them 
instructions on the motion to recommit. Now it appears they are grossly 
misusing the new unfunded mandates law and, on this first challenge out 
of the gate, we are being denied the very right that was so vital to 
the Republicans in previous Congresses.
  I am deeply troubled that if this practice continues, it could simply 
become a backdoor approach used to gag legitimate debate, whether on 
the motion to recommit or on any other responsible and germane 
legislative initiatives. I urge the majority to carefully consider the 
ramifications of misusing the unfunded mandates point-of-order for 
purposes other than the legitimate intentions spelled out in Public Law 
104-4. The unfunded mandates law should be used as tool to fix 
legislation that imposes unfair financial burdens on state and local 
governments and the private sector. It should not be used as a weapon 
to prevent the consideration of viable and responsible legislation 
initiatives.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. orton

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the 
gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ORTON. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Orton moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means with instructions to report the bill forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       On page 60, strike lines 5 through 15 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       This title and the amendments made by it shall take effect 
     and apply to measures enacted after the date of its enactment 
     and shall have no force or effect on or after January 1, 
     2005.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, before being recognized to speak on my motion 
to recommit, I have a parliamentary inquiry which is important to 
resolve, so people can understand the motion to recommit and how it 
fits into what we have been voting on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that the rule which was adopted 
providing for debate on this bill did automatically adopt the 
conference report on the line-item veto as a separate bill and 
authorize that to be sent to the President for his signature?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would tell the gentleman that the 
answer to that is yes.
  Mr. ORTON. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct 
that the rule provides that title II in this bill, which is the line-
item veto title, would be stripped from this bill if unamended, and the 
bill would be sent without title II, but if amended, title II would 
remain in this bill and go to the Senate for their consideration?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the gentleman, if title II 
were amended as a result of a motion to recommit, then it would not be 
stricken from the engrossed bill. But the operation of section 2(b) of 
the House Resolution 391 would not be affected. The conference report 
on S. 4 would stand as adopted.
  Mr. ORTON. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the conference report, standing as 
adopted, would go to the President for his signature, regardless of 
whether this motion to recommit is adopted and the title is amended. 
The only effect of amending the title would be to keep title II in the 
bill as amended for Senate consideration of the title II as amended, is 
that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. ORTON. So if we adopt the motion to recommit and amend this title 
II, the President would have the original conference bill under the 
rule for his signature, and assuming the Senate adopted this bill with 
the amendment, would also have title II as amended, under this bill for 
his signature, is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would be possible.
  Mr. ORTON. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] is 
recognized for 5 minutes on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I will be as clear and concise as I can. This 
motion to recommit does one thing and one thing only to the bill we are 
considering. It simply says that the line-item veto provisions of the 
bill would become effective immediately upon enactment, rather than 
waiting until the next calendar year to become effective. That is all 
it does.
  Therefore, the President will already get the opportunity to sign the 
conference report making line-item veto effective the beginning of next 
year.

                              {time}  1545

  This amendment will give him the opportunity, if adopted, to make it 
effective immediately and give the President the authority to veto 
items of specific spending between the date of enactment and the next 
calendar year. That is the only difference.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just in explanation suggest that not only I 
but many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this line-
item veto. The line-item veto has not been partisan. It is supported by 
both Democrats and Republicans, by the Congress and the President. In 
fact, during floor debate in the other body on March 23, 1995, the 
majority leader said the following: ``During the 1980's, opponents of 
the line-item veto used to say that Republicans supported it only 
because the President happened to be a Republican at the time. Now, we 
are in the majority and we are prepared, nearly all of us on this side, 
to give this authority to a Democratic President.''
  The Senate majority whip said the following: ``Why be afraid of 
allowing this current President to use his power? We on this side of 
the aisle, the Republicans, are ready to give this opportunity to 
President Clinton so he can have the opportunity to pare spending.''
  In this body in February 1995 during debate on this line-item veto 
bill, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Solomon, said the 
following: ``Well, here we are. We get a Democrat President, and here 
is Solomon up here fighting for the same line-item veto for the 
Democrat President.''
  Finally, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] during the same debate 
said, ``Let us give it to the President whether the President is 
Democrat or Republican. Let us stop the games. Let us get into budget 
management.''
  That is what this amendment is about. It is about budget management. 
It is about stopping the partisan games. It is about saying we are for 
line-item veto now, not next year or next decade; we want it to be 
effective upon enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, that is all this amendment will do. If passed, it will 
send it to the other body for consideration and the President's 
signature, which would then give us all the opportunity to drop 
partisan rhetoric and actually have the opportunity to cut spending.
  Now someone suggests we do not really need it because we are cutting 
spending. This is the 1996 congressional pig book put out by the 
Citizens Against Government Waste. They have identified over $12.5 
billion in the eight appropriation bills that we have already passed 
for 1996 of questionable spending which, if the President had this 
authority right now, he could veto. That is for 1996. We have lost that 
opportunity. Let us not lose the opportunity for 1997. Let us give him 
the opportunity during the appropriation process of 1997.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

[[Page H3027]]

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding.
  I would say this is a very simple motion. I voted for a line-item 
veto for President Bush. I voted for the rule to give the line-item 
veto immediately to the President 2 hours ago. This motion will say, do 
not wait until 1997, do not play politics, do not do what the American 
people do not want us to do. Let the President cut $25 billion out of 
spending now.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to see and explain to our 
constituents why we did not extend the line-item veto to the President 
of the United States tomorrow.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just say we do not want to 
make this a partisan fight. This motion to recommit is not partisan. 
This motion to recommit does nothing to the bill which we are adopting 
except one thing: making the line-item veto effective immediately upon 
enactment so that this President has not only the opportunity, but the 
responsibility, to look at each item of spending and veto those items 
that he believes are inappropriate, send them back under new 
legislation. It is appropriate, it is responsible, it is the thing to 
do. I would urge adoption of the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer] is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned with what I am 
hearing here today because Senate Majority Leader Dole and President 
Clinton chose the effective dates that are in this bill today. If we 
want to kill line-item veto, we will unbalance this very, very delicate 
document we have here today.
   Mr. Speaker, our conferees have spent a year now working together 
with people who did not want a line-item veto over in the other body. 
There were a lot of them. But finally, with the leadership of Bob Dole 
we got them to move, and they conceded to us on almost everything, 
almost everything. We have a real, true line-item veto here today, 
something we have always wanted.
  Now, there are things in here I do not like. There is a sunset 
provision for 8 years. I wanted it to be permanent. Know what we did? 
We traded that off to get something that my colleagues and I want, and 
that is a lockbox provision, so that if any President vetoes an item 
and it sticks, that means that money cannot be reprogrammed. It means 
it is cut out of the budget and we have that satisfaction.
   Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan told me once, Jerry, the art of 
compromise means success in politics; people have other views. We have 
worked diligently with Senator Exon and other good Democrats on the 
other side of the aisle in the Senate to put this together. We better 
vote down this motion to recommit and vote for this, and let us give 
the President a true line-item veto. That is what the American people 
want.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I served as chairman of the conference on 
the line-item veto. It was a difficult, contentious, hotly contested 
conference. We argued and debated over the issues long and hard. It 
took us a year, yes, it took us longer than any of us would have 
wanted.
  It was not a partisan matter; in fact, there are those who support 
line-item veto, the gentleman from Utah being one of the staunchest 
supporters of the line-item veto on both sides of the aisle and in both 
Chambers, so this is not a partisan issue. But what we finally arrived 
at, I think, is the best that we can get. One of the items that was 
agreed to was an effective date. That was only finally resolved because 
there was an agreement reached between the President of the United 
States and the majority leader of the Senate to depoliticize the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that to change the effective date now 
would really put this right square in the middle of the Presidential 
debate. I think it would clearly distort what we are trying to do here. 
By putting it on January 1, obviously the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton] and Members on the other side of the aisle feel very strongly 
that they will, in fact, reelect our President, their party leader. We, 
on the other hand, feel very strongly that we will elect our nominee, 
Mr. Dole. This takes it out of the political spectrum. It gives the 
next President or the continuing President the ability to use this 
line-item veto.
  So I would urge, and urge strongly, Members on both sides not to 
upset the apple cart here, because it really could do violence to what 
we had agreed to.
  Our conference report is on its way to the President now. It was, in 
fact, passed as a result of the rule that passed. It was passed. Now, 
if we were to adopt this amendment, it would change a deal that has 
been made, an agreement that has been reached, bipartisan on both sides 
of the aisle and I think would possibly make it difficult for us 
actually to exercise the line-item veto.
  So I would urge as strongly as I can, please, keep the effective date 
where it is, keep it out of the political and the Presidential campaign 
this year.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what was said in the earlier 
debate, that the President has within his power unilaterally to 
activate this authority immediately after his signature on the bill by 
signing and agreeing to a balanced budget for this country and does not 
have to wait until January 1, 1997.
  Further, to say to the Members that the perfect can be the enemy of 
good movement for what has taken so very, very long, and I know it 
better than anybody else, because I initiated line-item veto as a 
proposal before the Congress. It is not agreed to, it can be signed 
into law. Let us not put it back into the maze of procedure that could 
further tie it up this year. I urge a vote against the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas 
and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 159, 
nays 256, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 101]

                               YEAS--159

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--256

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton

[[Page H3028]]


     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Duncan
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fowler
     Lantos
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Tate
     Torricelli
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1614

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mrs. Fowler against.

  Mrs. MYRICK, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. WATT of 
North Carolina, and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay''
  Messrs. PAYNE of New Jersey, SHADEGG, and SALMON changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 328, 
noes 91, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 102]

                               AYES--328

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--91

     Abercrombie
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Borski
     Bunn
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Crapo
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Evans
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kingston
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fowler
     Lantos
     McNulty
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Torricelli
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1632

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Fowler for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for, with Mr. Filner against.
       Mrs. Smith of Washington for, with Mr. Stokes against.


[[Page H3029]]


  Mr. CRAPO and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FOGLIETTA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________