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.

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.

[Page: H2994]
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

(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.'.

[Page: H2995]
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:

`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 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'.

[Page: H2996]
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.

`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.
`(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.

[Page: H2997]
`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 XX relating to XX, 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.

`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.

`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.

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

[Page: H2998]
`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.

`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.

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

[Page: H2999]

[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 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.

[Page: H3000]
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 overdue change to increase the earnings limit to $30,000.

[Page: H3001]
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 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].

[Page: H3002]
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 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.

[Page: H3003]
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 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.

[Page: H3004]
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 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:

[Page: H3005]

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 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.

[Page: H3006]
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 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?

[Page: H3007]
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 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.'

[Page: H3008]
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, 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.

[Page: H3009]
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

[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 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.

[Page: H3010]
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.

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.

[Page: H3011]

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 (`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.

[Page: H3012]
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 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.

[Page: H3013]

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 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.

[Page: H3014]

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, 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.

[Page: H3015]

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 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.

[Page: H3016]

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 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.

[Page: H3017]
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. 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.

[Page: H3018]

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.

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.

[Page: H3019]

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 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.

[Page: H3020]
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 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.

[Page: H3021]

[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. 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.

[Page: H3022]
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

[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, 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.

[Page: H3024]

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.

A recorded vote was ordered.

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

[Page: H3025]

Roll No. 100

[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 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.

[Page: H3026]

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].

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.

[Page: H3027]
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

[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
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

[Page: H3028]

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

[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.

Mr. CRAPO and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from `aye' to `no.'

[Page: H3029]
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.

END