U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

69–006 1999

Union Calendar No. 485

105th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 105–844

ACTIVITIES

AND

SUMMARY REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

One Hundred Fifth Congress

JANUARY 2, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,

Washington, DC, January 2, 1999.

Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL,

Acting Clerk of the House, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: Pursuant to Clause 1(d) of House Rule XI,

I am pleased to transmit a report on the activities of the Committee on the Budget during the 105th Congress.

Sincerely,

JOHN R. KASICH, Chairman.
1The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget is governed by Rule X, clause 1(d) of the

Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress. This provision was added to the

House Rules by section 101 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Union Calendar No. 485

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 105–844

ACTIVITIES AND SUMMARY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

ON THE BUDGET DURING THE 105TH CONGRESS

JANUARY 2, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State

of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. KASICH of Ohio, from the Committee on the Budget,

submitted the following

REPORT

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

JURISDICTION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee on the Budget was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.1 The committee has been responsible for

developing and reporting the annual congressional budget resolution, for assembling and reporting any reconciliation legislation required by that resolution, and working on the congressional budget

process. In the 105th Congress, its jurisdiction was expanded to include budget process, generally.

The main purpose of the budget resolution is to provide an overall framework and plan for congressional action on spending and

revenue legislation. It sets ceilings on total budget authority and

outlays and a floor on total revenues. It also allocates spending authority to the appropriations committees and among the various

authorizing committees of the House and Senate that have jurisdiction over direct spending programs. The limits and allocations set

by the budget resolution are enforced through points of order in the

House and Senate.

The budget reconciliation process is used when changes in entitlement or tax law are needed to implement the plan set out in the

budget resolution. The process begins with the inclusion of ‘‘reconciliation instructions’’ in the budget resolution. These instruc-
2

tions direct the appropriate authorizing committees to report legislation revising programs under their jurisdiction to change projected spending by specified amounts. They may also direct the taxwriting committees to report legislation revising tax law to change

revenues by specified amounts.

In response to reconciliation instructions, the various committees

report their legislative recommendations to the Budget Committee.

The Budget Committee then assembles the legislation into an omnibus legislative package—without making any substantive revisions—for consideration by the House. The Budget Committee not

only has jurisdiction over budget resolutions and reconciliation

bills, it has legislative jurisdiction over major elements of the budget process and various statutory controls over the Federal budget.

When the House of Representatives adopted Rules for the 104th

Congress (H. Res. 6) on January 5, 1995, the Budget Committee

achieved for the first time legislative jurisdiction over major elements of the congressional budget process and various statutory

controls over the Federal budget. The relevant section of clause

1(d) reads as follows:

(1) * * * Other measures setting forth appropriate levels of budget totals for the United States Government.

(2) Measures relating to the congressional budget process, generally.

(3) Measures relating to the establishment, extension,

and enforcement of special controls over the Federal budget including the budgetary treatment of off-budget Federal

agencies and measures providing exemption from reduction under any order issued under part C of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

The addition to subparagraph (d)(2) gave the Budget Committee

substantive jurisdiction over any statement providing for a balanced budget required under the proposed amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. The amendment, which had passed the House during

the 104th Congress but failed in the Senate, envisioned a legislative vehicle other than the concurrent budget resolution that would

be sent to the President.

Subparagraph (d)(3) gave the Budget Committee primary jurisdiction over budget terminology and the discretionary spending

limits. The Budget Committee would have shared jurisdiction over

such other elements of the congressional budget process. Essentially, the Budget Committee would have exclusive jurisdiction over

both budgetary levels and budgetary concepts and secondary jurisdiction over purely procedural aspects of the congressional budget

process. In fact, the Budget Committee would have shared jurisdiction over the establishment, extension, and enforcement of mandatory and discretionary spending limits, PAYGO requirements, and

other special budgetary mechanisms to control spending, the deficit, or the Federal budgets. Jurisdiction over the sequestration

process also migrated from the Government Reform and Oversight

Committee to the Budget Committee.

The Rules for the 104th Congress recognized that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee would retain, for the duration of the 104th Congress, jurisdiction over certain budget process
3

2 Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule X, clauses 3(b) and 4(b) (1995).

3See Appendix A of H. Rept. 105–100, the House report accompanying H. Con. Res. 84, the

Concurrent Resolution on the Budget-Fiscal Year 1998.

already in the legislative pipeline, most notably the rescission process, performance budgeting, regulatory budgets, and capital budgeting. However, in adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5) on January 7, 1997, the

Budget Committee extended its legislative jurisdiction even further

to cover not only the congressional budget process but all budget

process in general. The pertinent section of clause 1(d) was

changed to read as follows:

(3) Measures relating to the budget process, generally.

To also reflect this expansion of the Budget Committee’s legislative jurisdiction over budget process measures that were retained

under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight, the pertinent section of clause 1(g) outlining the

Government Reform and Oversight Committee’s jurisdiction was

changed from

(4) Budget and accounting measures, generally.

to read as follows:

(4) Government management and accounting measures,

generally.

In addition to its legislative duties, the Budget Committee continues to have responsibilities for oversight and studies. These responsibilities include oversight of the Congressional Budget Office;

study of the outlay effects of existing and proposed legislation;

study of off-budget entities; study of tax expenditures; and study of

proposals to improve and facilitate the congressional budget process.2

ACTIVITIES IN THE 105TH CONGRESS

FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET CYCLE

Overview of the bipartisan budget agreement

The framework for the 1997 budget agreement was developed

through intensive deliberations between members of the Budget

Committee, the congressional leadership, President Clinton, and

various officials of his administration. The overall framework of the

agreement—which was intended to balance the Federal budget by

2002 and provide for tax relief—was agreed to on May 2, 1997. The

Bipartisan Budget Agreement Between the President and the

Leadership of Congress, a memorandum of understanding outlining

the terms of this negotiated budget agreement, was finally approved and signed by the President, the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader on May 15, 1997.3 The Congress then quickly adopted a

budget resolution establishing spending and revenue aggregates

and committee allocations consistent with the spending levels

agreed to in the memorandum of understanding. The budget resolution also included the necessary reconciliation instructions to the

authorizing committees to make the necessary changes in entitle-
4

ment and tax law to achieve the spending and revenue levels in the

budget resolution. In accordance with these instructions, the Congress passed two reconciliation bills—one for entitlements and

other programs not controlled through the appropriations process

and one for taxes. Ultimately, a package of budget process provisions intended to enforce the budget agreement and which were

within the legislative jurisdiction of the Budget Committees were

folded into the reconciliation bill for entitlements reforms.

Budget resolution

The congressional budget cycle commenced on May 18, 1997,

with the markup of the Fiscal Year 1998 Concurrent Resolution on

the Budget. Out of 13 amendments offered, only 2 were adopted:

A sense of the Congress offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard relating to

family violence; and the second amendment, which was offered by

Mr. Sherman, provided language to the budget resolution regarding

a separate allocation for land acquisition and exchanges. The resolution was ordered reported with a vote of 31 to 7.

The report accompanying House Concurrent Resolution 84,

House Report 105–100, was filed on May 18, 1997.

The Rules Committee reported a rule (H. Res. 152/H. Rept. 105–

102) providing for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 84 on May 20, 1997. The rule made in order an amendment

printed in the accompanying report, House Report 105–102, as

original text, provided for 5 hours of general debate, and made in

order the consideration of five substitutes.

House Resolution 152 was considered by the House on May 20,

1997, and passed by a vote of 278 to 142. House Concurrent Resolution 84 was called up for consideration that same day. Five substitutes were defeated by roll call votes. The House passed the bill,

as amended by the rule, by 333 to 99.

The House agreed to a unanimous consent request by Mr. Kasich

to disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the request to

a conference on June 3, 1997.

The conferees met on June 3, 1997. Senator Domenici was elected chairman of the conference committee. The conference report

was filed in the House on June 4, 1997 (H. Rept. 105–116). In the

rule providing for the consideration of the conference report (H.

Res. 160), the House agreed to the conference report on June 4,

1997.

Reconciliation

A conference report on the budget resolution provides for levels

of spending and revenue for the Federal Government. Because it is

a document internal to the Congress, however, it does not have the

force of law. To implement these levels, a Budget Resolution may

include instructions that direct certain Congressional committees

to submit recommendations to the budget committee to ‘‘reconcile’’

levels of current law spending and revenue to those called for in

the budget resolution. This simply means changing the law so that

the levels of spending and revenue called for in the budget resolution are attained. These recommendations are then gathered together by the Budget Committee and reported to the whole House

in the form of one or more ‘‘Reconciliation Bills.’’ These bills must
5

be passed by the House, the Senate, and then signed by the President in order to become law.

For fiscal year 1998, the conference report on the budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 84/H. Rept. 105–116) provided for two separate

reconciliation bills: the first, what became the Balanced Budget Act

of 1997, reformed entitlements. The second, what was eventually

known as the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, provided tax relief.

These reconciliation instructions directed eight authorizing committees in the House to submit to the Budget Committee by June 12,

1997, recommendations that were reported by the Budget Committee on June 20, 1997, in the form of two reconciliation packages.

Pursuant to section 310(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act, the

submissions were not subject to amendment by the Budget Committee.

In addition, in order to maintain those spending and revenue levels over five years, certain budget process and enforcement provisions in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 were extended and

modified as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Reconciliation—entitlement reforms (Balanced Budget Act of

1997)

For the reconciliation bill providing entitlement reforms, the

committee agreed to a motion offered by Mr. Hobson to order it reported to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of

25 to 5, 2 voting present.

Mr. Kasich introduced the entitlement provisions reported by the

Budget Committee as H.R. 2015 and filed the accompanying report

(House Report 105–149), on June 24, 1997. H.R. 2015 contained the

text of the legislative language provided to the Budget Committee

by the various authorizing committees recommending changes in

entitlement programs.

The Committee on Rules ordered reported a rule (H. Res. 174)

providing for the consideration of H.R. 2015 on June 25, 1997. The

rule provided for three hours of general debate. It made in order

the text of H.R. 2015 as modified by the amendments printed in

the Rules Committee’s report as original text for purposes of

amendment. This rule also added the text of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 on to H.R. 2015. The BEA of 1997 extended budget procedures through 2002, such as the discretionary spending

caps and the pay-as-you-go requirements in order to assure both

revenue and spending levels were maintained. This same rule provided for the consideration of the second reconciliation bill, H.R.

2014, providing tax relief.

House Resolution 174 passed the House by a vote of 228 to 200,

1 voting present, on June 25, 1997.

The House rejected by a vote of 207 to 223 a motion by Mr.

Brown of Ohio to recommit the bill to the Budget Committee with

instructions to report the bill back to the House with various modifications. The House then passed the reconciliation bill by 270 to

162.

The House agreed under unanimous consent, to a motion offered

by Mr. Kasich to disagree to the Senate amendment and ask for

a conference on July 10, 1997. Mr. Spratt offered a motion to instruct conferees which was agreed to by 414 to 14.
6

4The Line Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton

v. City of New York on June 25, 1998.

The conferees met on July 10, 1997 and they elected Senator

Domenici as the chairman of the conference committee. The conference report was filed on July 30, 1997 (H. Rept. 105–217). The

House agreed to the conference report on July 30, 1997, by a vote

of 346 to 85.

The President exercised use of the line-item veto pursuant to

P.L. 104–130 on a single provision in H.R. 2015 on August 11, 1998

(Presidential Cancellation Number 97–3).4

Reconciliation—tax relief (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997)

As for the second reconciliation package providing tax relief, the

Budget Committee agreed to a motion offered by Mr. Hobson to

order the legislative text reported with a favorable recommendation

by a vote of 20 to 12 on June 20, 1997.

Mr. Kasich introduced the tax provisions reported by the Budget

Committee as H.R. 2014 and filed the accompanying report (House

Report 105–148) on June 24, 1997. This legislation would later be

renamed the ‘‘Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.’’ H.R. 2014 contained

the text of the reconciliation submission related to tax relief reported by the Budget Committee.

The Committee on Rules ordered reported a rule (H. Res. 174)

providing for the consideration of H.R. 2014 on June 25, 1997. The

rule provided for 3 hours of general debate and made in order one

substitute to be offered by Mr. Rangel or his designee. It made in

order the text of H.R. 2014 as modified by the amendment printed

in the Rules Committee’s report as original text for purposes of

amendment. This same rule provided for the consideration of H.R.

2015, the entitlement reconciliation act, as well.

House Resolution 174 passed the House by a vote of 228 to 200,

1 voting present, on June 25, 1997.

The House rejected an amendment offered by Mr. Rangel by a

vote of 197 to 235. The House rejected by a vote of 164 to 268 a

motion by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota to recommit the bill to the

Budget Committee with instructions to report the bill back to the

House with various modifications. The House then passed the reconciliation bill by 253 to 179.

The House agreed under unanimous consent, to a motion offered

by Mr. Kasich to disagree to the Senate amendment and request

a conference on July 11, 1997.

The conferees met on July 11, 1997. They elected Senator

Domenici as the chairman of the conference committee. The conference report was filed on July 30, 1997 (H. Rept. 105–220). The

House agreed to the conference report on July 30, 1997 by a vote

of 389 to 43.

The President exercised use of the line-item veto pursuant to

P.L. 104–130 on two provisions in H.R. 2014 on August 11, 1998

(Presidential Cancellation Numbers 97–1 and 97–2).
7

Budget enforcement provisions (Budget Enforcement Act of

1997)

The Bipartisan Budget Agreement called for legislation extending the discretionary spending limits and PAY-AS-YOU-GO requirements and a variety of lessor changes in the budget process.

Unlike the entitlement and tax provisions submitted to the Budget

Committee as part of the reconciliation process, this legislation was

within the original jurisdiction of the budget process. However,

these provisions could not be directly incorporated by the Budget

Committees into one of the reconciliation bills because of a Senate

rule prohibiting the consideration of extraneous measures as part

of reconciliation. However, the Budget Committees were able to

add these provisions at a later stage in the reconciliation process.

On June 25, 1997 the House incorporated the enforcement provisions into the entitlement bill, H.R. 2015, as part of a self-executing rules providing for the consideration of the bill. Although the

Senate added the enforcement provisions to the tax bill as part of

a floor amendment, the provisions were ultimately enacted as part

of the entitlement bill.

Also on June 25, 1997, Representative Nick Smith of Michigan

introduced the enforcement measures as H.R. 2037, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997.

The House passed these enforcement measures as Title X of the

conference report on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 when it was

considered on July 30, 1997, which was subsequently signed into

law by the President on August 11, 1997.

Summary of the balanced budget agreement

The Bipartisan Budget Agreement reached in 1997 represented

an historic achievement. It demonstrated that Congress and the

Clinton Administration could commit themselves to major reforms

of government programs so that the Federal budget could be balanced in 2002. It also called for a substantial reduction in the tax

burden for middle-income Americans.

This legislation—the Balanced Budget Act of 1997—demonstrated the efforts of House authorizing committees to fulfill the

first part of that agreement through systemic, fundamental reforms

of government entitlements. A second measure, called the Revenue

Reconciliation Act of 1997, provided approximately $85 billion in

net tax relief over 5 years. Together, these twin bills responded to

the reconciliation directives of the House Concurrent Resolution on

the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998, (H. Con. Res. 84), which embraced

the Bipartisan Budget Agreement.

From a budgetary standpoint, the accomplishments of the budget

agreement included the following:

—It balanced the Federal budget in 2002 and was projected

to run surpluses each year thereafter through 2002.

—It provided a total of $85 billion in net tax relief over the

following 5 years and $250 billion through 2007—the majority

of this relief going to middle-income working families.

—It delayed Medicare bankruptcy for 10 years.

—It reduced total Federal spending to 18.9 percent of gross

domestic product [GDP] by 2002—the first time since 1974

that Federal spending has been below 20 percent of GDP.
8

—It slowed the growth of total Federal spending to 3 percent

a year for the following 5 years. —It achieved roughly $182 billion in entitlement savings over the following 5 years, and approximately $700 billion over

the following 10 years.

—It slowed the growth of non-defense discretionary outlays

to less than one-half of 1 percent a year over the following 5

years, compared with an average of 6 percent a year for the

past 10 years. —It saved taxpayers approximately $13 billion over the fol- lowing 5 years, and $142 billion over the following 10 years,

through lower interest payments.

These achievements in this budget agreement represented the

Budget Committee’s long-term commitment to keep the Congress’

fiscal house in order.

The Balanced Budget Act

Title I of the Balanced Budget Act increased Federal food stamp spending by $1.5 billion over the 1998–2002 period and $2.8 billion

over the 1998–2007 period. The law contained two provisions that

address components of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Those provisions allow states

to exempt some individuals from the 3-month time limit for participation and give additional Federal funds to States for the Food

Stamp Employment and Training program. Other provisions required states to establish a system to assure that prisoners are not

counted as members of food stamp households and create a new

grant program for nutrition education.

Title II permanently prohibited the Federal Housing Administration [FHA] from deferring foreclosure on properties whose owners

have defaulted in making payments on FHA-insured single-family

mortgages. In addition, this title made two changes affecting rent

adjustments for Section 8 housing. First, it generally prohibited

rent increases for projects assisted under the Section 8 New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, or Moderate Rehabilitation

programs, if their assisted rents exceed the fair market rent [FMR]

established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development

[HUD] for that housing area. It also limited rent increases for units

without tenant turnover.

Title III directed the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]

to auction licenses to use portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

CBO estimated that those provisions would produce receipts totaling $21.4 billion over the 1998–2002 period and $25.3 billion over

the 1998–2007 period.

Title IV of the Balanced Budget Act contained provisions relating

to Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s health. The title reduced Federal spending by $102 billion over the 1998–2002 period compared

with prior law. Medicare benefit payments were reduced by $99 billion, Medicare premiums were increased by $13 billion, Medicaid

was cut by $10 billion, and additional spending of $20 billion was

provided for a new State Children’s Health Insurance Program. In

addition, the title increased Federal revenues by $2 billion. Title IV

of the Balanced Budget Act contains provisions relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s health. On balance, the title reduces
9

federal spending by $102 billion over the 1998–2002 period compared with prior law. Medicare benefit payments are reduced by

$99 billion, Medicare premiums are increased by $13 billion, Medicaid is cut by $10 billion, and additional spending of $20 billion is

provided for a new State Children’s Health Insurance Program. In

addition, the title increases federal revenues by $2 billion.

Many of the provisions of title IV were interrelated. Subtitles A

through G primarily concerned the Medicare program, and subtitle

H primarily concerned Medicaid, but the Medicare provisions also

affected Medicaid and vice versa. Similarly, the State Children’s

Health Insurance Program established by subtitle J had an impact

on Medicaid. The Medicare provisions in title IV established

Medicare+Choice plans, expanded preventive benefits, reduced payment rates to most health care providers, increased premiums required of beneficiaries, and made other changes to reduce the

growth of Medicare spending and postpone the depletion of the

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. CBO projected that under prior

law, spending for Medicare benefits would have grown at an annual rate of 8.5 percent from 1997 to 2002. In total, the provisions

of title IV slowed the rate of growth to about 6 percent a year on

average and postpone the depletion of the trust fund from 2001 to

2007.

The act gave Medicare beneficiaries the option to remain in the

existing fee-for-service Medicare program or to enroll in

Medicare+Choice plans, which replaced Medicare’s current riskbased plans. Medicare+Choice plans included health maintenance

organizations, point-of-service plans, preferred provider organizations, provider-sponsored organizations, private fee-for-service

plans, and insurance plans operated in conjunction with a medical

savings account. New or expanded screening benefits were added

for the detection of breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostate cancer,

colorectal cancer, and osteoporosis. Blood-glucose-testing supplies

and diabetes self-management training are covered for beneficiaries

with diabetes.

Title V modified the previous year’s welfare reform law by providing money to states to help welfare recipients find work and by

softening restrictions on benefits to legal immigrants. Savings in

the unemployment insurance program offset some of those costs.

Title VI reduced the cost of the Federal student loan programs

and repealed the Smith-Hughes Act, which provides funds for vocational education. It saved $2 billion in the student loan program

and $64 million in vocational education over the next 10 years. It

required that the 36 guaranty agencies currently participating in

the guaranteed student loan program return $1 billion of their cash

reserve funds to the federal government in 2002. It also eliminated

the separate per-loan federal subsidy to schools or alternate originators to process applications for direct student loans.

Title VII made a number of changes affecting the retirement and

health insurance programs for Federal employees and annuitants.

It increased the contributions of both Federal employees and their

employing agencies for the employees’ retirement programs, modified the Federal Government’s payments for health insurance coverage of employees and annuitants, and ended a payment the

Treasury was required to make to the U.S. Postal Service. In total,
10

those provisions reduced on-budget direct spending by $3.3 billion,

increased off-budget outlays by $44 million, and increased Federal

revenues by $1.9 billion over the 1998–2007 period. Most of these

savings resulted from increasing the amount of retirement costs

charged to agency appropriations.

Title VIII extended through 2002 the provisions of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 [OBRA–90] that affect programs

for veterans. It also made the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs to spend certain receipts subject to appropriations

and rounded down cost-of-living adjustments [COLAs] for veterans’

disability compensation. CBO estimated that the act reduced direct

spending by $247 million in 1998 and $4.2 billion over the 1998–

2007 period. It raised net spending subject to appropriations by

$557 million in 1998 and $4.4 billion over the 10-year period.

Title IX produced budgetary savings by selling Federal assets,

extending certain fees, increasing the excise tax on tobacco, and implementing other policy reforms.

Title X of the Balanced Budget Act extended budget enforcement

requirements and made technical changes to congressional and executive branch budget procedures. Most important, it extended the

limits on discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go procedures

for direct spending and receipts beyond 1998. Those provisions affect the consideration of future legislation but do not directly alter

Federal outlays or revenues. (See section on the BEA.)

Under title XI, the Federal Government assumed additional responsibility for several state-like functions currently carried out by

the District of Columbia, including operation of its courts, prisons,

and pension system. Title XI also eliminated the current annual

Federal payment to the District of $660 million and instead authorizes a smaller contribution of $190 million in 1998 and unspecified

additional amounts in future years. The act also authorized the

District of Columbia to borrow up to $300 million from the Treasury for a period not to exceed 10 years if it cannot obtain reasonable financing elsewhere. Finally, this title affected the operation

of the District government in several ways. It required the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the

‘‘Control Board’’) and the District government to develop management reform plans for nine District agencies and four functions. It

also gave the Control Board the authority to fire the heads of the

nine agencies as well as to confirm mayoral nominations to head

each agency; and requires the District to balance its budget in

1998.

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made many changes to the Internal Revenue Code. A new $500 per child credit for children

under age 17 would result in the largest reduction in revenue.

Other major reductions in revenue result from new tax credits for

students and other education incentives, changes in IRAs, lower

taxation of capital gains realizations, and modifications to the alternative minimum tax and to the estate and gift tax. The act’s

provisions also included changes that would generate revenue. The

largest revenue increase comes from extending and modifying aviation excise taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO esti-
11

mate that these provisions would reduce governmental receipts by

$88.9 billion over the 1997–2002 period. In addition, CBO estimates that the bill would increase outlays from the Child Credit

and Earned Income Credit by $11.5 billion in fiscal years 1997

through 2002.

BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1997

Summary of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997

In compliance with the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, the budget

enforcement provisions that were enacted as part of the reconciliation bill for entitlement reforms extended the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO requirements through Fiscal Year 2002. It

also made a series of technical changes in both the Congressional

budget process and in the operations of the discretionary spending

limits and PAYGO requirements.

The bill revised the limits for Fiscal Year 1998 and extended the

caps through Fiscal Year 2002. It established separate limits on defense and non-defense discretionary spending for Fiscal Year 1998

and 1999. The bill maintained at revised levels the separate limits

for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. It repealed automatic

cap adjustments for changes in inflation and estimating differences

between OMB and CBO on outlays. However, it retained adjustments in budget authority and outlays for changes in concepts and

definitions, emergencies, continuing disability reviews and added

adjustments for the International Monetary Fund, international arrears and an Earned Income Tax Initiative.

The bill also extended PAYGO, which had been scheduled to expire after Fiscal year 2008 requirements through Fiscal Year 2002.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, the permitted OMB

and CBO to count the proceeds from certain asset sales under

PAYGO. It specifically specified that both the costs are proceeds of

assets sales were to be counted under PAYGO if the sale was estimated to result in a long-term cost to the Federal Government. In

order to make this determination both OMB and CBO are required

to calculate the net present value of the asset sale.

TECHNICAL CHANGES IN THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

The bill also made a series of technical changes in the congressional budget process focused largely on 302(a) allocations, points

of order, and the budgetary treatment of credit programs. Most of

these changes were made to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

These changes:

Provided for a single spending allocation of mandatory

spending authority to the authorizing committees. Previously

the House provided separate allocations of new entitlement authority and other mandatory, but nonentitlement, budget authority. Neither form of spending is controlled through annual

appropriations. In the case of new entitlement authority, the

claimant has a legal right to the specified benefits and may

seek redress in court if the benefit is denied. Members have

not found the distinction particularly useful and it occasionally

has led to inequitable outcomes between committees simply be-
12

cause one committee has an allocation of one form of spending

authority and another an allocation of both.

Changed the default allocation to the Appropriations Committee if the budget resolution is not agreed to by April 15th

from levels based on the President’s budget submission to the

levels assumed in the second year of the most recently agreed

to budget resolution.

Made the requirement that the budget resolution establish

limits on loans optional. The inclusion of these levels has essentially been obsolete since 1990 when loans and loan guarantees were first treated as a form of new budget authority as

part of the Credit Reform Act.

Modified Congressional procedure to permit additional tax

cuts in the House if they are offset with spending cuts. It also

broadened the so-called ‘‘Rosty exception’’ in the House for deficit-neutral legislation. It specified that taxes can be reduced

beyond the levels assumed in the budget resolution if they are

offset with reductions in direct spending. The reductions must

be in excess of any required under reconciliation.

Repealed a mini-reconciliation process to pay for tax cuts. In

the event a bill was reported that reduced revenue, OBRA

1990 permitted the Budget Committee to issue a reconciliation

bill to pay for it. Since no such procedures were adopted in the

Senate, any bill that passed the House pursuant to these procedures was ineligible for the expedited procedures afforded a

reconciliation bill in the Senate. The mini-reconciliation process has not been utilized since its enactment.

Eliminated the need to waive the Congressional Budget Act

if the rule ‘‘cures’’ the bill. Since most points of order applied

to the bill as reported, bill sponsors had to secure Budget Act

waivers even if the source of the violation was corrected in the

base text (through a rule or manager’s amendment).

Increased committee flexibility in meeting reconciliation targets. The BBA changed the rule that permits the Ways and

Means Committee to substitute 20 percent of its entitlement

changes with 20 percent of its tax changes as long as the committee meets the net change in the deficit or surplus set forth

in its reconciliation instructions. It was argued that the Ways

and Means Committee could not invoke the original rule because it applied to the sum of tax and entitlement changes

which hypothetically could be zero. The BBA simply provided

that the 20 percent rule applies to the sum of the absolute

value of the desired revenue and tax change.

TECHNICAL CHANGES IN THE PAYGO REQUIREMENTS/DISCRETIONARY

SPENDING LIMITS

The BBA of 1997 made numerous technical changes in the statutory controls over the budget that are codified as part of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as

amended most recently by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. These

changes primarily dealt with PAYGO requirements, particularly sequestration procedures. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997:

Corrected the ‘‘look-back’’ requirement for calculating a

PAYGO sequester. As originally drafted in 1990, the language
13

was intended to ensure that legislation enacted after an endof-year sequester would be picked up in the following year’s sequester. OMB maintained that the provision required it to sum

the deficit effects for the budget year and the prior year in its

sequester calculations. Consequently a credit in one year could

be used to offset a deficit increase in the next. The BBA clarified that only the budget effects of legislation enacted after the

prior year’s sequester are included in the deficit calculation for

the following year.

Permanently extended the budget resolution’s 5-year window. Prior to 1990, the budget resolution covered the budget

year and two planning years. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 temporarily extended the window to 5 years

as part of what was then a 5-year budget agreement. The BBA

of 1997 permanently extended the 5-year window, but provided

that the budget resolution can specify a different period to enforce through points of order.

Clarified assumptions in the baseline for farm subsidies. It

specified that in the event of an expiration of farm subsidies,

the baseline for scoring legislation would assume the prior

year’s levels. In the 104th Congress, OMB scored the farm bill

as ‘‘saving’’ $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 relative to a 1949-

era law in order to avoid triggering a sequester for that year.

Revised the formula for calculating sequestration of student

loans under PAYGO so that it is equally applied to direct student loans and guaranteed student loans.

Provided for a ‘‘rolling’’ 5-year scorecard under PAYGO.

Under the BBA the sum of all legislation must be deficit-neutral for 5 years from the date of enactment. Previously PAYGO

applied for the full 5 years only in the year following its enactment or extension. Each year, the window was reduced by a

year. The contracting window emboldened Congress and the

administration to support legislation that increased the deficit

just beyond the PAYGO horizon.

Repealed the separate 302(a) allocation in the House for the

Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund [VCRTF]. This change

was intended to put VCRTF spending on a comparable basis

with defense and non-defense discretionary spending, which

are not subject to points of order under 302(f) even though they

fall under separate caps.

Increased the caps by the amount of emergency-designated

appropriations. While the BBA continues to hold appropriations harmless for emergency-designated appropriations, it adjusts the caps upward by the amount of the emergency instead

of ignoring the fact that such amounts were appropriated.

Eliminated adjustments in the baseline for nonindexed programs. Prior to the BBA, OMB and CBO inflated certain nonindexed programs in their baseline calculations. The BBA directed CBO and OMB to assume no adjustment for inflation

unless such an adjustment is required in the underlying law.

Under this change, legislation affecting these programs will be

estimated relative to a base that assumes a constant level of

expenditures. The BBA also provides OMB and the Budget

Committees with the authority to determine whether the base-
14

line should assume funding for legislation in which the program sunsets at a certain date.

Updated the list of programs and activities that are subject

to or exempt from PAYGO requirements and the discretionary

spending limits.

Amended the Credit Reform Act to redefine the discount rate

used to determine each year’s cash flows to more closely follow

standard discounting procedures. It also required agencies to

base their subsidy cost estimates on the economic and technical assumptions in the President’s budget for the year in

which the funds are obligated. It requires that the interest rate

paid on financing account debt to Treasury, and earned on financing account balances, be identical to the discount rate

used to calculate subsidy costs. Finally, it requires that all unobligated balances in liquidating accounts be transferred to the

general fund of the Treasury.

Extended the period for OMB estimates from 10 days after

enactment to 15 days. Additionally, the BBA stipulated that

OMB must consult in writing with the Budget Committees on

scoring issues.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET CYCLE

Budget resolution and related events

The committee marked up the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 on May 27, 1998. The committee passed a

sense-of-Congress amendment relating to Individual Development

Accounts offered by Mr. Thompson; an amendment offered by Mr.

Spratt and Ms. Rivers relating to funding levels for special education as amended by a substitute amendment offered by Mr. Bass

to reflect a sense of Congress on special education funding levels;

an amendment offered by Mr. Weygand relating to funding levels

for Medicare Home Health Care Services, as modified; an amendment offered by Mr. Bentsen relating to Medicare Beneficiaries’

Clinical Cancer Trials Demonstration, as modified; report language

offered by Mr. Bentsen regarding funding for the Army Corps of

Engineers; and report language offered by Mr. Minge related to the

Social Security Trust Fund. An amendment offered by Mr. Minge

related to Medicare+Choice was withdrawn and the committee

agreed by unanimous consent to include similar language in the report. Therefore, out of 28 amendments, the committee defeated 20

amendments and 1 was withdrawn. The committee agreed to the

budget resolution, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 22 to 16.

The Committee on Rules ordered reported (H. Res. 455/H. Rept.

105–565) a rule providing for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 284. The rule made in order an amendment printed

in the accompanying report as original text and suspended House

rule XLIX which provides for an automatic engrossment of legislation raising the debt ceiling upon the adoption the budget resolution conference report. On June 4, 1998 the House passed the rule

which self-executed changes modified the text of the bill that made

in order two substitutes to be offered by Representatives Neumann

and Spratt.
15

The House passed House Resolution 455 on June 4, 1998. House

Concurrent Resolution 284 (H. Rept. 105–555) was called up in the

House for consideration on June 4, 1998. The House rejected substitutes offered by Mr. Neumann by a vote of 158 to 262 and Mr.

Spratt by 164 to 257. The budget resolution passed the House by

a vote of 216 to 204 on June 5, 1998.

Reconciliation and related events

Section 4 of House Concurrent Resolution 284 set forth reconciliation instructions for considering a single omnibus reconciliation

bill. The deadline for committee submissions to meet the reconciliation instructions was June 26, 1998.

Interim allocation

The Rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4059, the fiscal

year 1999 Military Construction Appropriations Act specified that

until a conference report on the budget resolution for fiscal year

1999 was passed, the appropriations committees allocation would

be based on the levels as passed in the Balanced Budget Act of

1997.

TASK FORCE ON BUDGET PROCESS REFORM

During the 105th Congress, many House Members indicated

strong interest in major budget process reform. The basic structure

of the congressional budget process had not been fundamentally revised since the Congressional Budget Act was enacted in 1974.

Members have repeatedly expressed frustration over the complexity

of the process, the inability to enforce budgetary decisions, and

what they perceive as an inherent bias toward higher spending. In

recent time, additional concerns had been raised about the advisability of maintaining separate controls over discretionary and

mandatory components of the budget during a period in which the

budget is projected to be in balance.

On February 5, 1998, the Budget Committee authorized the creation of a Task Force on Budget Process Reform. The Task Force

was authorized pursuant to a colloquy between the Chairman of

the Budget Committee and Representative David Hobson. Representative Jim Nussle was appointed as chairman and Representative Cardin the ranking minority member. Mr. Nussle indicated

that the Task Force would hold hearings in the following areas: the

nature of the budget resolution, baselines and budgetary projections, contingent liabilities, emergencies, and budget enforcement.

The first hearing was held on March 31, 1998, on the topic of

converting the budget resolution into a law. At this hearing, Dr.

Roy Meyers, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland,

and David Mason of the Heritage Foundation testified in favor of

converting the concurrent budget resolution into a joint resolution.

Dr. Allen Schick of the Brookings Institution cautioned that adoption of a joint resolution would reduce the ability of Congress and

the President to set forth their own budget priorities.

On April 1, 1998, a hearing was held on baselines and budgetary

projections. The witnesses included Tim Penny, a former Member

of Congress and current cochairman of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; Paul Van de Water, Assistant Director
16

for Budget Analysis, Congressional Budget Office; and Timothy J.

Muris, Foundation Professor, George Mason University School of

Law. Former Representative Tim Penny, who along with Chairman

Kasich and Representative Charles W. Stenholm offered a bill in

the 103rd Congress to reform the concept of baseline budgeting,

testified in favor of eliminating some elements of the baseline and

modifying others. Timothy Muris testified in favor of eliminating

the baseline altogether, arguing that it does not provide a true

measure of the services being provided. In his testimony, Paul Van

de Water defined the concept and evolution of baselines and explained how CBO currently measures its baseline.

A third hearing was held on April 23, 1998, on the budgetary

treatment of insurance programs. At that hearing the witnesses included Susan J. Irving, Associate Director for Federal Budget

Issues, Government Accounting Office; Marvin Phaup, Deputy Assistant Director, Special Studies Division, Congressional Budget

Office and former CBO director Rudy Penner. All three witnesses

testified in favor of reforming the budgetary treatment of Federal

insurance programs so that they more accurately reflect the true

cost of the programs, but continued that the model for estimating

risk are not sufficiently developed to immediately integrate accrual

measures into the budget.

On June 18, 1998, Chairman Nussle invited Members to testify

on their own ideas for reforming the budget process. Mr. Cox, Mr.

Barton, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. Castle testified before

the Task Force. Although they did not testify, Mr. Radanovich, Mr.

Goss, Mr. Sam Johnson, and Mr. Livingston submitted prepared

statements for the record.

A fourth and final hearing was held on June 23, 1998, on the

topic of emergencies. The hearing featured James L. Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Director

Witt was followed by a panel of experts (James Blum, CBO; Keith

Bea, CRS; and Theresa Gullo, CBO) on the budgetary treatment of

emergencies.

At the conclusion of these hearings, Representatives Nussle and

Cardin worked on comprehensive legislation to reform the budget

process. Together with other members of the Budget and Rules

Committee, Representatives Nussle and Cardin introduced H.R.

4837, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1998 on

October 14, 1998.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET PROCESS REFORM OF 1998

The majority of the provisions of H.R. 4837, the Comprehensive

Budget Process Reform Act of 1998, are first effective starting in

fiscal year 2000. However, the insurance title in Title V is gradually phased in over a 5-year period. A summary of the contents in

each of the titles of this bill is explained below.

Title I—Budget with the force of law

This bill changes the current nonbinding concurrent budget resolution to a joint budget resolution, which—when signed by the

President—has the force of law. However, Congress retains the

power to adopt a concurrent budget resolution under expedited pro-
17

cedures if the President vetoes the joint budget resolution and the

Congress fails to override.

H.R. 4837 prohibits the Congress from considering spending and

tax bills until a budget resolution—either a joint resolution or a

concurrent resolution—is in place, unless a 3/5ths majority approves consideration of such spending or tax bills. This bill also

simplifies the budget resolution by collapsing the 20 nonenforceable

budget functions to the total (aggregate) spending and revenue levels, with categories for discretionary, mandatory, and emergency

spending.

This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget [OMB],

the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congressional

Budget Office [CBO] to exclude Social Security revenues and outlays in their budget projections and analyses. It also reaffirms the

special off-budget status of Social Security, including its exemption

from Pay-As-You-Go [PAYGO] requirements and sequestration and

its exclusion from the President’s budget submission as well as any

joint or concurrent budget resolution passed by the Congress. The

bill stipulated that budgetary displays of budget aggregates exclude

Social Security and other off-budget entitlements.

Title II—Reserve fund for emergencies

Reserve Fund

H.R. 4837 requires both the President and Congress to budget up

front for emergencies by establishing an emergency reserve fund.

Both the President and Congress are required to include a reserve

fund in their budgets, which must contain an amount at least

equal to the 5-year historical average of amounts provided for

emergencies.

Definition of Emergency

This bill establishes a clear procedure for determining whether

an emergency exists. Emergency funds may not be released from

the reserve fund unless the Budget Committee certifies that: a situation arises that requires funding for ‘‘the prevention or mitigation

of, or response to, loss of life or property, or a threat to national

security and the situation is ‘‘unanticipated’’—with ‘‘unanticipated’’

defined as sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.

H.R. 4837 eliminates automatic increases in spending limits for

‘‘emergency’’ amounts designated in appropriations bills and exemptions from PAYGO requirements for ‘‘emergency’’ amounts designated in authorization bills. In addition, the bill subjects all

emergency spending to both the levels in the budget resolution and

any applicable spending caps.

Dire Emergency Procedure

H.R. 4837 includes an additional fallback provision for exceptional and dire emergencies that require immediate spending in excess of those provided for in the budget resolution. Any bill providing funds in excess of the amount in the reserve would be referred

to the Committee on the Budget, which could amend the bill to exempt some or all of the additional emergency funding.
18

Title III—Enforcement of budgetary decisions

Budget Compliance Statements

This bill requires committees to justify Budget Act waivers for

bills that breach the levels in the budget resolution. It also extends

Budget Act requirements to nonreported bills. Finally, it requires

CBO to provide cost estimates for conference reports.

Title IV—Accountability for Federal spending

Sunsetting

To increase accountability for Federal spending, this bill requires

committees to submit a schedule for reauthorizing, within 10 years,

all laws, programs, or agencies in their jurisdictions, including entitlements.

Subjecting Entitlements to Annual Appropriations

H.R. 4837 prohibits the consideration, in the House or in the

Senate, of any bill, amendment, motion, or conference report that

authorizes a new entitlement program, project or activity unless

the program is limited to a period of 10 or fewer years. The bill

mandates that the Budget Committee justify any amount allocated

in the budget resolution to an authorizing committee to create or

expand an entitlement.

Increasing the Debt Limit

This bill enhances accountability by requiring Congress to vote

each time it increases the limit on the public debt. Specifically, it

would eliminate House Rule 49, which enabled the House to pass

legislation increasing the debt without having to vote on it.

Ten-Year Cost Estimates

H.R. 4837 deters committees from moving budget-busting legislation whose costs explode beyond the 5-year window of the budget

resolution, by requiring CBO to report on the 10-year cost of the

bill.

Title V—Budgeting for unfunded liabilities and other long-term obligations

Long-Term Liabilities

H.R. 4837 begins the process of budgeting for the long-term liabilities of certain Federal insurance programs by requiring both

the President and Congress to switch from cash to accrual budgeting for Federal insurance programs.

Long-Term Budget Projections

In addition to shifting to accrual budgeting for insurance programs, H.R. 4837 requires CBO and OMB to report periodically on

long-term budgetary trends, as well as the impact of long-term

Federal spending and taxation on the economy, including such fac-
19

tors as inflation, foreign investment, interest rates, and economic

growth.

Title VI—Baselines, Byrd rule, and fail-safe mechanisms

‘‘Baseline Budgeting’’

H.R. 4837 requires that the Presidents’ budget submissions,

budget resolutions/reports, CBO semiannual reports, and CBO cost

estimates be compared with prior year spending levels. Also, CBO

and OMB are required to report periodically on the reasons behind

the growth of Federal entitlement spending.

Byrd Rule Reform

This bill curtails the ability of the Senate to strip out of budget

reconciliation bills certain provisions designated under the Senate’s

so-called Byrd Rule. Under the Byrd Rule, 40 Members of the Senate can unilaterally strip out House provisions from a budget reconciliation conference report if the Senate judges the provisions to

be ‘‘incidental’’ spending reductions or ‘‘extraneous’’ to the purposes

of budget reconciliation. This provision precludes use of the Byrd

Rule for budget reconciliation conference reports.

Preventing Government Shutdowns

H.R. 4837 provides for an automatic stop-gap appropriation for

any appropriations bills that are not enacted by the beginning of

the fiscal year, thereby ensuring that vital government functions

continue without interruption.

Lock-Box

H.R. 4837 includes a ‘‘lock-box’’ to ensure that savings from Floor

amendments to appropriations bills are used to reduce Federal

Government spending. The spending levels in the budget resolution

and any caps on discretionary spending are automatically reduced

by the amount by which a floor amendment reduces the amount

appropriated for any program project or activity.

Title VII—Budgeting in an era of surpluses

Relaxing PAYGO requirements

This bill amends the Pay-As-You-Go requirements, which require

offsets for entitlement increases and tax cuts, to permit using any

portion of the on-budget surplus to pay for certain legislative initiatives.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF MEASURES ON WHICH ACTION WAS TAKEN

BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

H. CON. RES. 84

Sponsor—Kasich

Date Introduced—May 18, 1997

House Committee—Budget

Official Title—A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
20

1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal

years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

May 18, 1997—House Committee on the Budget Reported an

Original Measure. Report No. 105–100.

May 18, 1997—Placed on Union Calendar No. 61.

May 19, 1997—Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 152 Reported to House.

May 20, 1997—Rule Passed House.

May 20, 1997—Called up by House by Rule.

May 20, 1997—Committee on Rules granted a modified closed

rule providing 5 hours of general debate; waiving all points of order

against the resolution and against its consideration; making in

order only the amendments in nature of a substitute designated in

section 2 of the rule.

May 21, 1997—Resolution agreed to in House by yea-nay vote:

333–99 (Record Vote No. 148).

May 21, 1997—Received in the Senate.

May 21, 1997—Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under

General Orders. Calendar No. 56.

May 23, 1997—Measure laid before Senate.

May 23, 1997—Senate struck all after the enacting clause and

substituted the language of S. Con. Res. 27 as amended.

May 23, 1997—Passed Senate in lieu of S. Con. Res. 27, amended, by yea-nay vote: 78–22 (Record Vote No. 92).

May 23, 1997—Senate insisted upon its amendment.

May 23, 1997—Senate requested a conference.

June 3, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees: Domenici, Grassley, and Lautenberg.

June 3, 1997—House disagreed to the Senate amendment by

voice vote.

June 3, 1997—House agreed to a conference.

June 3, 1997—House conferees instructed agreed to by voice

vote.

June 3, 1997—The Speaker appointed conferees: Kasich, Hobson,

and Spratt.

June 3, 1997—Conference held.

June 4, 1997—Conferees agreed to file conference report.

June 4, 1997—Conference report H. Rept. 104–116 filed.

June 4, 1997—Rules Committee resolution H. Res. 160 reported

to House.

June 5, 1997—Rule passed House.

June 5, 1997—House agreed to conference report by yea-nay

vote: 327–97 (Record Vote No. 166).

June 5, 1997—Senate agreed to the conference report by yea-nay

vote: 76–22 (Record Vote No. 96).

H.R. 2015

Brief Title—Balanced Budget Act of 1997; Veterans Reconciliation

Act of 1997; Budget Enforcement Act of 1997; National Capital

Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997;

District of Columbia Retirement Protection Act of 1997; District of Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997; District of

Columbia Bond Financing Improvements Act of 1997.

Sponsor—Kasich
21

Date Introduced—June 24, 1997

House Committee—Budget

Official Title—A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

June 24, 1997—House Committee on the Budget reported an

original measure. Report No. 105–149.

June 24, 1997—Placed on Union Calendar No. 89.

June 25, 1997—Committee on Rules granted by a vote of 9 to 4,

a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2015; providing three

hours of general debate; an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2015 modified by the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered

as adopted in the House; the bill, as amended, shall be considered

as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment waiving

all points of order against provisions of the bill as amended; no

amendment shall be in order to the bill as amended except an

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of

H.R. 2015; waiving all points of order against the amendment in

the nature of a substitute; providing that the yeas and nays are ordered on final passage and that the provisions of clause 5(c) of Rule

XXI shall not apply to the votes on the bill, amendments thereto

or conference reports thereon.

June 25, 1997—Rules Committee resolution H. Res. 174 reported

to House.

June 25, 1997—Rule passed House.

June 25, 1997—Called up by House by rule.

June 25, 1997—Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on

the Budget with instructions to report the same back to the House

with an amendment failed in House by yea-nay vote: 207–223

(Record Vote No. 240).

June 25, 1997—Passed House (amended) by yea-nay vote: 270–

162 (Record Vote No. 241).

June 25, 1997—Received in the Senate, read twice.

June 25, 1997—Senate struck all after the enacting clause and

substituted the language of S. 947 as amended.

June 25, 1997—Passed Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent.

June 26, 1997—Senate ordered measure printed as passed.

June 27, 1997—Senate insisted on its amendment.

June 27, 1997—Senate requested a conference.

June 27, 1997—Senate appointed conferees: Domenici, Grassley,

Nickles, Gramm, Lautenberg, Conrad and Boxer.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: Lugar, Helms, and

Harkin.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: D’Amato, Shelby,

and Sarbanes.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: McCain, Stevens, and Hollings.
22

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: Murkowski, Craig, and

Bumpers.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Finance: Roth, Lott, and Moynihan.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Governmental Affairs: Thompson, Collins, and Glenn.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources: Jeffords, Coats, and Kennedy.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: Specter, Thurmond, and Rockefeller.

July 10, 1997—House disagreed to the Senate amendment by

unanimous consent.

July 10, 1997—House requested a conference.

July 10, 1997—House conferees instructed agreed to by recorded

vote: 414–14 (Record Vote No. 257).

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed conferees for consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Kasich, Hobson, Armey, DeLay,

Hastert, Spratt, Bonior, and Fazio.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Agriculture for consideration of title I of

the House bill, and title I of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Smith (OR), Goodlatte, and Stenholm.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of title II of the House bill, and title II of the Senate

amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Leach,

Lazio, and Gonzalez.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Commerce for consideration of subtitles A–

C of title III of the House bill, and title IV of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Bliley, Schaefer,

and Dingell.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Commerce for consideration of subtitle D

of title III of the House bill, and subtitle A of title III of the Senate

amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Bliley,

Tauzin, and Dingell.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Commerce for consideration of subtitles E

and F of title III, title IV and X of the House bill, and divisions

1 and 2 of title V of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Bliley, Bilirakis, and Dingell.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Education and the Workforce for consideration of subtitle A of title V and subtitle A of title IX of the House

bill, and chapter 2 of division 3 of title V of the Senate amendment,

and modifications committed to conference: Goodling, Talent, and

Clay.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Education and the Workforce for consider-
23

ation of subtitles B and C of title V of the House bill, and title VII

of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Goodling, McKeon, and Kildee.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Education and the Workforce for consideration of subtitle D of title V of the House bill, and chapter 7 of division 4 of title V of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Goodling, Fawell, and Payne.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for consideration of title VI of the House bill, and subtitle A of title VI

of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Burton, Mica, and Waxman.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on the Transportation and Infrastructure for

consideration of title VII of the House bill, and subtitle B of title

III and subtitle B of title VI of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Shuster, Gilchrest, and Oberstar.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs for consideration of title

VIII of the House bill, and title VIII of the Senate amendment, and

modifications committed to conference: Stump, Smith (NJ), and

Evans.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of subtitle A of title V and title IX of the House bill, and divisions 3 and

4 of title V of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed

to conference: Archer, Shaw, Camp, Rangel, and Levin.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of titles

IX and X of the House bill, and division 1 of title V of the Senate

amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Archer,

Thomas, and Stark.

July 10, 1997—Conference held.

July 29, 1997—Conferees agreed to file conference report.

July 30, 1997—Conference report H. Rept. 105–217 filed.

July 30, 1997—Committee on Rules granted a rule providing two

hours of general debate; vacating the proceedings by which the conference report was filed and authorizes the managers to immediately refile the report in the form actually signed and ordered reported, with the corrected part printed in section 3 of the rule; providing that existing signatures of the conferees shall remain valid

as authorizing the presentation of the conference report to the

House in its corrected form; providing one motion to recommit

which may not contain instructions; providing that following the

disposition of the conference report no further action on the bill is

in order except by subsequent order of the House.

July 30, 1997—Rules Committee resolution H. Res. 202 reported

to House.

July 30, 1997—Rule passed House.

July 30, 1997—House agreed to conference report by yea-nay

vote: 346–85 (Record Vote No. 345).

July 31, 1997—Senate agreed to conference report by yea-nay

vote: 85–15 (Record Vote No. 209).
24

July 31, 1997—Cleared for White House.

Aug. 1, 1997—Presented to President.

Aug. 5, 1997—Signed by President and became Public Law No.

105–33.

Aug. 11, 1997—Line item veto by President under the Line Item

Veto Act (P.L. 104–130) (Presidential Cancellation Number 97–3).

Aug. 11, 1997—Veto message and bill referred to Senate Committees on the Budget; and Finance.

Sept. 3, 1997—Veto message and bill referred to House Committees on the Budget; and Commerce.

Sept. 3, 1997—Disapproval bill introduced in Senate (S. 144).

Sept. 9, 1997—Disapproval bill introduced in House (H.R. 2436).

H.R. 2014

Brief Title—Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997; Revenue Reconciliation

Act of 1997; United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership

Act.

Sponsor—Kasich

Date Introduced—June 24, 1997

House Committee—Budget

Official Title—A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(2) and (d) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.

June 24, 1997—House Committee on the Budget reported an

original measure. Report No. 105–148.

June 24, 1997—Placed on Union Calendar No. 88.

June 25, 1997—Committee on Rules granted, by a vote of 9 to

4, a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2014; providing

three hours of general debate; an amendment in the nature of a

substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2014 modified by the

amendments printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted in the House; the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment

waiving all points of order against provisions of the bill as amended; no amendment shall be in order to the bill as amended except

an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text

of H.R. 2014; waiving all points of order against the amendment

in the nature of a substitute; providing that the yeas and nays are

ordered on final passage and that the provisions of clause 5(c) of

Rule XXI shall not apply to the votes on the bill, amendments

thereto or conference reports thereon.

June 25, 1997—Rules Committee resolution H. Res. 174 reported

to House.

June 25, 1997—Rule passed House.

June 26, 1997—Called up by House by rule.

June 26, 1997—Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on

the Budget with instructions to report the same back to the House

with various amendments failed in House by yea-nay vote: 164–268

(Record Vote No. 244).

June 26, 1997—Passed House (amended) by yea-nay vote: 253–

179 (Record Vote No. 244).

June 26, 1997—Received in the Senate.

June 27, 1997—Senate struck all after the enacting clause and

substituted the language of S. 949 as amended.
25

June 27, 1997—Passed Senate with an amendment by yea-nay

vote: 80–18 (Record Vote No. 160).

June 27, 1997—Senate insisted on its amendment.

June 27, 1997—Senate requested a conference.

June 27, 1997—Senate appointed conferees: Roth, Lott, and Moynihan.

June 27, 1997—The Senate appointed conferees—from the Committee on the Budget: Domenici, Grassley, Nickles, Lautenberg,

and Conrad.

July 08, 1997—Message on Senate action sent to the House.

July 10, 1997—House disagreed to the Senate amendment by

unanimous consent.

July 10, 1997—House requested a conference.

July 10, 1997—House conferees instructed failed by recorded

vote: 199–233 (Record Vote No. 258).

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed conferees for consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Kasich, Archer, Crane, Thomas,

Armey, DeLay, McDermott, Rangel, Stark, and Matsui.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for consideration of sections 702 and 704 of the Senate amendment, and

modifications committed to conference: Shuster, Molinari, and

Oberstar.

July 10, 1997—The Speaker appointed additional conferees—

from the Committee on Education and the Workforce for consideration of sections 713–14, 717, 879, 1302, 1304–5, and 1311 of the

Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:

Goodling, Fawell, and Payne.

July 11, 1997—Conference held.

July 28, 1997—Conferees agreed to file conference report.

July 30, 1997—Conference report H. Rept. 105–220 filed.

July 30, 1997—Committee on Rules granted a rule providing two

hours of general debate; vacating the proceedings by which the conference report was filed and authorizes the managers to immediately refile the report in the form actually signed and ordered reported, with the corrected part printed in section 3 of the rule; providing that existing signatures of the conferees shall remain valid

as authorizing the presentation of the conference report to the

House in its corrected form; providing one motion to recommit

which may not contain instructions; providing that following the

disposition of the conference report no further action on the bill is

in order except by subsequent order of the House.

July 30, 1997—Rules Committee resolution H. Res. 202 reported

to House.

July 30, 1997—Rule passed House.

July 31, 1997—House agreed to conference report by yea-nay

vote: 389–43 (Record Vote No. 350).

July 31, 1997—Point of order against the conference report

raised in Senate.

July 31, 1997—Motion to waive the Budget Act against the conference report made in Senate.
26

July 31, 1997—Motion to waive the Budget Act against the conference report agreed to in Senate by yea-nay vote: 78–22 (Record

Vote No. 210).

July 31, 1997—Senate agreed to conference report by yea-nay

vote: 92–8 (Record Vote No. 211).

July 31, 1997—Cleared for White House.

Aug. 1, 1997—Presented to President.

Aug. 5, 1997—Signed by President and became Public Law No.

105–34.

Aug. 11, 1997—Line item veto by President under the Line Item

Veto Act (P.L. 104–130)(Presidential Cancellation Numbers 97–1

and 97–2).

Aug. 11, 1997—Veto message and bill referred to Senate Committees on the Budget; and Finance.

Sept. 3, 1997—Veto message and bill referred to House Committees on Ways and Means; and the Budget.

Sept. 9, 1997—Disapproval bill introduced in Senate (S. 1157).

Sept. 9, 1997—Disapproval bill introduced in House (H.R. 2444).

H. CON. RES. 284

Sponsor—Kasich

Date Introduced—May 27, 1998

House Committee—Budget

Official Title—A concurrent resolution revising the congressional

budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 1998,

establishing the congressional budget for the United States

Government for fiscal year 1999 and setting forth appropriate

budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

May 27, 1998—House Committee on the Budget reported an

original measure. Report No. 105–555.

May 27, 1998—Placed on Union Calendar No. 310.

June 3, 1998—Rules Committee resolution H. Res. 455 reported

to House.

June 4, 1998—Rule passed House.

June 4, 1998—Committee on Rules granted, by voice vote, a

modified closed rule providing three hours of general debate; making in order three amendments in the nature of a substitute;

waiving all points of order against the amendments designated in

part 2; providing that the adoption of an amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of

the concurrent resolution for amendment; providing that rule XLIX

(establishment of statutory limit on the public debt) shall not apply

with respect to the adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999.

June 5, 1998—Considered by House as unfinished business.

June 5, 1998—Resolution agreed to in House (Amended) by yeanay vote: 216–204, 1 Present (Record Vote No. 210).

June 5, 1998—Received in the Senate.

June 15, 1998—Senate struck all after the enacting clause and

substituted the language of S. Con. Res. 86 as amended.

June 15, 1998—Passed Senate, amended, in lieu of S. Con. Res.

86 by unanimous consent.

June 15, 1998—Senate insisted upon its amendment.

June 15, 1998—Senate requested a conference.
27

June 15, 1998—The Senate appointed conferees: Domenici,

Grassley, Nickles, Gramm, Bond, Gorton, Gregg, Snowe, Abraham,

Frist, Grams, Smith of OR, Lautenberg, Hollings, Conrad, Sarbanes, Boxer, Murray, Wyden, Feingold, Johnson, and Durbin.

June 16, 1998—Message on Senate action sent to the House.

H.R. 3989

[Note: Not formally acted upon by Committee.]

Sponsor—Solomon

Date Introduced—June 3, 1998

House Committee—Ways and Means; Commerce; Agriculture; Resources; Judiciary; Transportation and Infrastructure; Banking

and Financial Services; and International Relations.

Official Title—A bill to provide for the enactment of user fees proposed by the President in his budget Submission under section

1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 1999.

Cosponsors—None

June 5, 1998—Called up by House under unanimous consent.

June 5, 1998—Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on

Ways and Means to report back to the House with an amendment

rejected in House by yea-nay vote: 0–416, 1 Present (Record Vote

No. 206).

June 5, 1998—Failed of passage in House by yea-nay vote: 0–

421, 1 Present (Record Vote No. 207).

H.R. 4837

[Note: Not formally acted upon by Committee.]

Sponsor—Nussle

Date Introduced—October 14, 1998

House Committee—Budget and Rules.

Official Title—A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to provide for joint resolutions on the Budget, reserve

funds for emergency spending, strengthened enforcement of

budgetary decisions, increased accountability for Federal

spending, accrual budgeting for Federal insurance programs,

mitigation of the bias in the budget process toward higher

spending, modifications in paygo requirements when there is

an on-budget surplus, and for other purposes.

Cosponsors—Kasich; Cardin; Solomon; Goss; Dreier; Minge;

Sununu; Radanovich; Granger; Stenholm; Barton; Castle; Ehrlich; Gutknecht; Hastings; Hoekstra; Inglis; Miller, D.; Parker;

Pitts; Royce; Shadegg; Shays; and Smith, N.

OTHER ACTIONS TAKEN

February 4, 1997—The Committee organized and adopted the

rules of the Committee for the 105th Congress and ordered them

printed; and (2) adopted the Committee’s Oversight Plan for the

105th Congress.
28

BILLS REFERRED TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE

Referrals under rule X, clause 1(d)(2)

H. Con. Res. 58, A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year

1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

H. Con. Res. 82, A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year

1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

H. Con. Res. 84, A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year

1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

H. Con. Res. 86, A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

H. Con. Res. 90, A concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year

1998 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

H. Con. Res. 284, A concurrent resolution revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year

1998, establishing the congressional budget for the United States

Government for fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate

budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

Referrals under rule X, clause 1(d) (3) and (4)

H. Con. Res. 228, A bill expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the primary objectives of the process for preparing the Federal budget for fiscal year 1999.

H. J. Res. 109, A bill relating to the expenditure of funds by the

Federal Government under National or State tobacco industry settlements.

H. J. Res. 112, A bill establishing the Joint Committee on Social

Security Reform.

H. Res. 89, A bill requesting the President to submit a budget

for fiscal year 1998 that would balance the Federal budget by fiscal

year 2002 without relying on budgetary contingencies.

H. Res. 340, A bill expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any budgetary surplus achieved by the end of fiscal year 2002 be saved for investment in the Social Security Program.

H.R. 4, the ‘‘Truth in Budgeting Act’’

H.R. 107, A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide

that the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded

from the budget of the United States Government.

H.R. 113, the ‘‘Balanced Budget Requirement Act of 1996’’

H.R. 126, the ‘‘Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act of 1997’’

H.R. 142, the ‘‘Crown Jewel National Parks Act’’

H.R. 205, the ‘‘Infrastructure Protection Act of 1997’’
29

H.R. 397, A bill to require that the President transmit to Congress, that the Budget Committees report, and that the Congress

consider a balanced budget for each fiscal year.

H.R. 441, A bill to repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

H.R. 457, A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

to provide for budgeting for emergencies through the establishment

of a budget reserve account, and for other purposes.

H.R. 593, A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985 to provide for a sequestration of all

budgetary accounts for fiscal year 1998.

H.R. 706, A bill to provide off-budget treatment for one-half of

the receipts and disbursements of the land and water conservation

fund.

H.R. 716, the ‘‘Freedom From Government Competition Act of

1997’’

H.R. 753, the ‘‘Intelligence Budget Accountability Act of 1997’’

H.R. 933, A bill to expand the definition of limited tax benefit for

the purposes of the Line Item Veto Act.

H.R. 867, the ‘‘Adoption Promotion Act of 1997’’

H.R. 898, the ‘‘Balanced Budget Enforcement Act of 1997’’

H.R. 1321, the ‘‘Expedited Rescissions Act of 1997’’

H.R. 1372, the ‘‘Budget Process Reform Act’’

H.R. 1487, A bill to provide off-budget treatment for one-half of

the receipts and disbursements of the land and water conservation

fund, and to provide that the amount appropriated from the fund

for . . .

H.R. 1588, the ‘‘United Nations Accountability Act of 1997’’

H.R. 1732, A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation

Fund Act of 1965 to provide for off-budget treatment of the receipts

and disbursements of the land and water conservation fund and

the special . . .

H.R. 1914, the ‘‘Debt Buy-Down Act’’

H.R. 2003, the ‘‘Budget Enforcement Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2037, the ‘‘Budget Enforcement Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2107, the ‘‘Androscoggin River Valley Heritage Area Act’’

H.R. 2191, the ‘‘National Debt Repayment Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2230, the ‘‘Tax Relief Guarantee Act’’

H.R. 2382, the ‘‘Highways and National Defense Investment Act

of 1997’’

H.R. 2400, the ‘‘Building Efficient Surface Transportation and

Equity Act of 1998’’

H.R. 2424, A bill to amend the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to

eliminate the requirement that a Federal budget deficit must exist

in order for the President to use the line-item veto authority.

H.R. 2496, the ‘‘Taxpayer Dividend Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2513, A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

to restore and modify the provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of

1997 relating to exempting active financing income from foreign

personal . . .

H.R. 2586, the ‘‘Surplus Protection Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2649, the ‘‘Expedited Rescissions Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2650, A bill to repeal the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

H.R. 2768, the ‘‘Personal Retirement Accounts Act of 1997’’
30

H.R. 2780, A bill to provide for an annual statement of accrued

liability of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program.

H.R. 2825, the ‘‘Economic Growth and Social Security Transition

Act’’

H.R. 2860, the ‘‘Budget Surplus Dividend Act of 1997’’

H.R. 2906, A bill to authorize the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to reduce non-defense discretionary spending

limits by two percentage points for each of fiscal years 1999 . . .

H.R. 2933, the ‘‘Working Americans Gainful Employment

(WAGE) Act’’

H.R. 2956, the ‘‘Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act’’

H.R. 3008, the ‘‘Notch Fairness Act of 1997’’

H.R. 3091, A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

to require a two-thirds vote on the passage of legislation that repeals, increases, or waives the discretionary spending limit or repeals . . .

H.R. 3228, A bill to amend the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to add

the requirement that if Federal budget is in surplus then the vetoed item shall be used to reduce the public debt.

H.R. 3474, the ‘‘Healthy Kids Act’’

H.R. 3564, A bill to exclude the receipts and disbursement of the

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund from the budget of the United

States Government, and for other purposes.

H.R. 3707, A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985 to allow reductions in the discretionary

spending limits to be used to offset tax cuts.

H.R. 4012, the ‘‘Honest Balanced Budget Act of 1998’’

H.R. 4070, A bill to restore veterans tobacco-related benefits as

in effect before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st Century.

H.R. 4174, A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget authority.

H.R. 4215, A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to submit to

Congress a plan to ensure that all amounts accrued on the books

of the United States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of

depleted . . .

H.R. 4220, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Restoration Act of 1998’’

H.R. 4234, A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to submit to

Congress a plan to ensure that all amounts accrued on the books

of the United States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of

depleted . . .

H.R. 4306, A bill to eliminate the spending cap adjustments for

International Monetary Fund funding increases.

H.R. 4343, A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

regarding the application of points of order to unreported measures

in the House of Representatives.

H.R. 4379, the ‘‘Budget Surplus Dividend Act of 1998’’

H.R. 4414, the ‘‘Repeal the Social Security Tax Increase Act’’

H.R. 4452, A bill requiring the Congressional Budget Office and

the Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic economic modeling in addition to static economic modeling in the preparation of

budgetary . . .
31

H.R. 4503, the ‘‘Social Security Budget Transparency Act of

1998’’

H.R. 4747, the ‘‘Emergency Agricultural Response Act of 1998’’

H.R. 4837, the ‘‘Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of

1998’’

SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 105TH CONGRESS

The following is a summary of the Oversight Plan submitted by

the Committee on the Budget for the 105th Congress:

To fulfill its obligation to the American people, the House

Committee on the Budget, which has been given the responsibility by the House of Representatives to oversee the Federal

budget and the process by which the budget is adopted, has an

aggressive oversight plan for the 105th Congress. To fulfill its

responsibility to develop an annual concurrent budget resolution, the committee will hold hearings and receive testimony

from Members of Congress, cabinet-level officials, state and

local officials, and expert witnesses to review the Federal budget in general, as well as the budgets and spending histories of

specific Departments.

The committee will review the activities of the Congressional

Budget Office. During 1999 the committee also will recommend

to the Speaker who to appoint as the new Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

The committee will study proposals designed to improve the

congressional budget process.

The committee will coordinate its oversight activities with

other committees, including, but not limited to, considering

other committee’s Views and Estimates when developing the

annual concurrent budget resolution.

The committee will study provisions of law which exempt

Federal agencies or any of their activities or outlays from inclusion in the Budget of the United States Government, and

make recommendations for terminating or modifying such provisions.

The committee will study the effect of existing and proposed

legislation, as well as government regulation, on government

spending.

The committee will request and evaluate continuing studies

of tax expenditures, and ways to improve coordination between

tax incentives and direct spending.

The committee will study monetary policy and its effect on

the Federal budget.

SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT ACTIONS TAKEN DURING THE 105TH

CONGRESS

The following is a summary of the major oversight actions taken

by the House Budget Committee during the 105th Congress:

During the course of developing the annual concurrent budget resolutions for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Committee

held numerous hearings at which testimony was received from

members of the President’s cabinet and other administration

officials regarding the budgets and spending histories of the
32

Federal Government and specific departments and agencies. (A

complete list of Committee hearings held during the 105th

Congress is included in this report.)

The Committee engaged in its statutory obligation to oversee the

Congressional Budget Office [CBO] by: (1) receiving testimony from

the Director and other staff of CBO during Committee hearings;

and (2) its daily interaction with CBO to insure that CBO fulfill its

mandate to provide Congress with budget information, data, estimates, statistics, etc.

Under the direction of a Budget Process Reform Task Force

chaired by Representative Jim Nussle, the Committee studied proposals designed to improve the congressional budget process. As

part of its review, the task force of the Committee held a series of

hearings devoted to the congressional budget process, at which testimony was received from experts from CBO and the General Accounting Office [GAO], outside experts, as well as interested Members of Congress.

The Committee coordinated its oversight activities with other

House committees in formulating the annual concurrent budget

resolutions, including soliciting and considering the other committees’ Views and Estimates.

The Committee studied the effect of existing and proposed legislation, as well as government regulation on government spending.

Significant staff resources were devoted to this activity, in addition

to substantial utilization of GAO resources and services. (A complete list of GAO reports issued at the request of the Budget Committee is included in this report.)

The Committee studied monetary policy and its effect on the Federal budget. As part of its review, the Committee held two hearings

at which it received testimony from Alan Greenspan, Chairman of

the Federal Reserve.

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE

1997 HEARINGS—FIRST SESSION Date Title Witnesses

2/05/97 ....... ‘‘Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is Good for Americans.’’ –.Glen Norfleet, Retired Senior Vice –––––President, Aerospace Engineering/Management; Cathi Herrod, Stay-At-Home Mom (Lawyer);

Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, M.D., Research Physician, Mount Sinai

Medical Center; Kyra Fischbeck, Director, Business Affairs, and

Lawyer, Prime Time 24; Sadie Coleman, Retired Teacher; Jennifer

Jennings, Student; James C. Miller III, Former OMB Director; Richard

K. Vedder, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Ohio University; Allen

Schick, Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland; Charles

Schultze, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute, Former Chair, Council

of Economic Advisors; Annelise Anderson, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute.–– –

2/11/97 ....... President Clinton’s Fiscal Year

1998 Budget.

Hon. Franklin D. Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget.

2/13/97 ....... CBO Budget Outlook and Analysis

of President Clinton’s Budget

Proposal.

Hon. June E. O’Neill, Ph.D., Director, Congressional Budget Office.

3/04/97 ....... Consumer Price Index ..................... Hon. Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Federal Reserve Board.

3/06/97 ....... CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of the

President’s Fiscal Year 1998

Budget.

Hon. June E. O’Neill, Ph.D., Director, – –Congressional Budget Office.

3/11/97 ....... U.S. Treasury Department’s Fiscal

Year 1998 Budget Request.

Hon. Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the United States Treasury; Hon.

Jack Lew, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget. –––

––––
33

1997 HEARINGS—FIRST SESSION—Continued Date Title Witnesses

3/12/97 ....... Revisions in the CPI Calculation– Michael Boskin, T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior

Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Katharine G. Abraham, Commissioner of Labor Statistics.

9/24/97 ....... Protecting the Future of Social

Security–.

Jose Pinera, President, International Center for Pension Reform, and

Co-Chairman, Cato Project on Social Security Privatization.–

10/08/97 ..... Addressing Our Long-Term Budget

Challenges.

Hon. Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Federal Reserve Board.

10/23/97 ..... Securing America’s Future: Preparing the Nation for the 21st Century.Hon. Newt Gingrich (R–GA); Hon. Bud Shuster (R–PA); Hon. John

Boehner (R–OH); Hon. Pete Stark (R–CA); Hon. Martin Olav Sabo

(D–MN); Hon. Jim Kolbe (R–AZ); Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (D–CA);

Hon. Bill Archer (R–TX); Hon. Mark Neumann (R–WI); Hon. David

Minge (D–MN); Grover Norquist, President, Americans For Tax Reform; William Niskanen, Chairman, Cato Institute; Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

1998 HEARINGS—SECOND SESSION Date Title Witnesses

2/03/98 ....... The Administration’s Fiscal Year

1999 Budget Submission.

Hon. Franklin Raines, Director, Office ––of Management and Budget.

2/05/98 ....... CBO Budget Outlook and Analysis

of President Clinton’s Budget

Proposal.

Hon. June E. O’Neill, Ph.D., Director, Congressional Budget Office.

3/04/98 ....... State of the Economy ..................... Hon. Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Federal Reserve Board.

3/26/98 ....... Joint Hearing on the Management

of the United States Forest

Service.

Michael Dombeck, Chief, United States –Forest Service; Barry Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, Resources,

Community and Economic Development Division, General Accounting

Office; Charlie Cotton and McCoy Williams, General Accounting Office; Robert T. Lewis, Jr., Acting Associate Chief, Department of Agriculture; Roger C. Viadero, Inspector General, Department of Agriculture; Hon. Helen Chenoweth (R–ID); Hon. Jerry F. Costello (D–IL);

Hon. Norman D. Dicks (D–WA); Hon. Wally Herger (CA); Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey (D–NY); Hon. George Miller (D–CA); Hon. Ralph Regula (R–OH); Hon. Bob Schaffer (R–CO); Hon. Don Young (R–AK).

BUDGET PROCESS REFORM TASK FORCE

Date Title Witnesses

3/31/98 ....... Converting the Concurrent Budget

Resolution Into a Joint Resolution: Should the Budget Be a

Law?.

Roy Meyers, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Allen Schick, Visiting Fellow,

Brookings Institution; David Mason, Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation.

4/01/98 ....... Budget Projections and Baselines Paul N. Van De Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis, Congressional Budget Office; Tim Penny, Co-Chairman, Committee for a

Responsible Federal Budget; Timothy J. Muris, Foundation Professor

of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

4/23/98 ....... Budgeting of Government Insurance Programs and Contingent

Liabilities.

Susan J. Irving, Associate Director, Budget Issues, Accounting and Information Management Division, General Accounting Office; Rudolph

G. Penner, Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute; Marvin Phaup, Deputy

Assistant Director, Special Studies Division, Congressional Budget

Office.

6/18/98 ....... Members’ Views on Budget Process

Reform.

Hon. Chris Cox (R-CA); Hon. Joe Barton (R-TX); Hon. Charles A. Stenholm (D-TX); Hon. Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN); Hon. Michael N. Castle

(R-DE); Hon. Porter Goss (R-FL). ––––

6/23/98 ....... Budgetary Treatment of Emergencies.James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Gary

Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, Federal Emergency Management

Agency; James Blum, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office;

Keith Bea, Specialist, American National Government, Government

Division, Congressional Research Office; Theresa Gullo, Chief, State

and Local Government Cost Estimates Unit, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office.
34

GAO REPORTS REQUESTED BY THE CHAIRMAN

The following is a list of General Accounting Office [GAO] reports

issued at the request of the chairman of the Budget Committee

during the 105th Congress. This list does not include the further

utilization of GAO resources and services in studying government

spending, such as requests for reports that are still pending or requests for information on an informal basis.

1. Budget Issues: Budget Enforcement Compliance Report

(AIMD–98–57).

2. Budget Issues: Budgeting for Federal Insurance Programs

(AIMD–97–16).

3. Defense Budget: Analysis of Operation and Maintenance Accounts for 1985–2001 (NSIAD–97–73).

4. Budget Issues: Analysis of Long-Term Fiscal Outlook (AIMD/

OCE–98–19).

5. Budget Issues: Budgeting for Federal Insurance Programs (T–

AIMD–98–147).

6. Managing For Results: Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans

Can Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GGD–98–44).

7. The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government wide Implementation Will be Uneven (GGD–97–109).

8. Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing

Unneeded RDT&E Infrastructure (NSIAD/RCED–98–23).

9. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: The Cost of Mismanagement

(AIMD–98–265R).

10. Federal Civilian Personnel: Cost of Lump-Sum Annual Leave

Payments to Employees Separating From Government (GGD–97–

100).

11. Community Policing: Issues Related to the Design, Operation,

and Management of the Grant Program (GGD–97–167).

12. The Results Act: Observations on DOD’s Draft Strategic Plan

(NSIAD–97–219R).

13. Forest Service: Barriers to Generating Revenue or Reducing

Costs (RCED–98–58).

14. The Results Act: Observations on the Postal Service’s June

1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GGD–97–163R).

15. Federal Property Disposal: Information on DOD’s Personal

Property Disposal Process (NSIAD–97–155BR).

16. WIC: States Had a Variety of Reasons for Not Spending Program Funds (RCED–97–166).

17. Financial Management: Federal Aviation Administration

Lacked Accountability for Major Assets (AIMD–98–62).

18. Forest Service: Status of Progress Toward Financial Accountability (AIMD–98–84).

19. The Results Act: Observations on the National Science Foundation’s Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–203R).

20. The Results Act: Observations on the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–206R).

21. Army National Guard: Planned Conversions Are a Positive

Step, but Unvalidated Combat Forces Remain (NSIAD–97–55BR).

22. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Energy’s

Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–199R).
35

23. Food Assistance: Working Women’s Access to WIC Benefits

(RCED–98–19).

24. The Results Act: Observations on USDA’s Draft Strategic

Plan (RCED–97–196R).

25. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Justice’s

February 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GGD–97–153R).

26. The Results Act: Observations on the Federal Emergency

Management Agency’s Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–204R).

27. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of State’s

May 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (NSIAD–97–198R).

28. The Results Act: Observations on the Small Business Administration’s Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–205R).

29. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Housing

and Urban Development’s Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–224R).

30. Student Loans: Selected Characteristics of Schools in Two

Major Federal Loan Programs (HEHS–97–45).

31. The Results Act: Observations on USTR’s September 1996

Draft Strategic Plan (NSIAD–97–199R).

32. Welfare Reform: Transportation’s Role in Moving From Welfare to Work (RCED–98–161).

33. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of the

Treasury’s July 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GGD–97–162R).

34. Medicaid: Sustainability of Low 1996 Spending Growth is

Uncertain (HEHS–97–128).

35. The Results Act: Observations on Commerce’s June 1997

Draft Strategic Plan (GGD–97–152R).

36. Budget Issues: Analysis of Long-Term Fiscal Outlook (AIMD/

OCE–98–19).

37. Food Assistance: Information on WIC Sole-Source Rebates

and Infant Formula Prices (RCED–98–146).

38. The Results Act: Observations on the Social Security Administration’s June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (HEHS–97–179R).

39. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Health

and Human Services’ April 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (HEHS–97–

173R).

40. The Results Act: Observations on Department of Labor’s June

1997 Draft Strategic Plan (HEHS–97–172R).

41. The Results Act: Observations on USAID’s November 1996

Draft Strategic Plan (NSIAD–97–197R).

42. Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability (RCED–97–125).

43. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education’s June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (HEHS–97–176R).

44. Food Assistance: A Variety of Practices May Lower the Costs

of WIC (RCED–97–225).

45. The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s April 1997 Draft

Strategic Plan (GGD–97–147R).

46. The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation’s Draft Strategic Plan (RCED–97–208R).

47. The Results Act: Observations on the Office of Management

and Budget’s July 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (AIMD/GGD–97–

169R).

48. Food Safety: Opportunities to Redirect Federal Resources and

Funds Can Enhance Effectiveness (RCED–98–224).
36

49. The Results Act: Observations on VA’s June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (HEHS–97–174R).

50. The Results Act: Observations on NASA’s May 1997 Draft

Strategic Plan (NSIAD–97–205R).

51. Future Years Defense Program: DOD’s 1998 Plan Has Substantial Risk in Execution (NSIAD–98–26).

52. The Results Act: Observations on OPM’s May 1997 Draft

Strategic Plan (GGD–97–150R).

53. CFO Act Financial Audits: Programmatic and Budgetary Implications of Navy Financial Data Deficiencies (AIMD–98–56).

54. Power Marketing Administrations: Repayment of Power

Costs Needs Closer Monitoring (AIMD–98–164).

55. The Results Act: Observations on EPA’s Draft Strategic Plan

(RCED–97–209R).

56. Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Programs (RCED–98–

63).

57. The Results Act: Assessment of the Government wide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999 (AIMD/GGD–98–159).

58. Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal

Agencies’ Strategic Plans (GGD–97–180).

59. The Results Act: Observations on the Draft Strategic Plans

of Selected Department of Labor Components (HEHS–97–188R).

60. Budget Function Classifications: Origins, Trends, and Implications for Current Uses (AIM–98–67).

61. Managing for Results: An Agenda To Improve the Usefulness

of Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD–98–228).

62. Budget Issues: Budget Enforcement Compliance Report

(AIMD–97–28).

63. Quadrennial Defense Review: Some Personnel Cuts and Associated Savings May Not Be Achieved (NSIAD–98–100).

64. Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact

of Current Program (HEHS–97–59).

65. National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results

Suggest Insights for Other Agencies (AIMD–98–113).

66. Future Years Defense Program: Substantial Risks Remain in

DOD’s 1999–2003 Plan (NSIAD–98–204).

67. Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap (AIMD–97–146).

68. Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging Management Issues (AIMD–98–11).

69. Rural Development: Financial Condition of the Rural Utilities

Service’s Loan Portfolio (RCED–97–82).

70. Defense Infrastructure: Central Training Funding Projected

to Remain Stable During 1997–2003 (NSIAD–98–168).

71. Debt Collection: Improved Reporting Needed on Billions of

Dollars in Delinquent Debt and Agency Collection Performance

(AIMD–97–48).

72. Defense Budget: Analysis of Operation and Maintenance Accounts for 1985–2001 (NSIAD–97–73).

73. Information Technology: Department of Energy Does Not Effectively Manage Its Supercomputers (RCED–98–208).

74. U.S. Agricultural Exports: Strong Growth Likely But U.S.

Export Assistance Programs’ Contribution Uncertain (NSIAD–97–

260).
37

75. Commodity Programs: Impact of Support Provisions on Selected Commodity Prices (RCED–97–45).

76. Food-Related Services: Opportunities Exist to Recover Costs

by Charging Beneficiaries (RCED–97–57).

77. Federal Electricity Activities: The Federal Government’s Net

Cost and Potential for Future Losses (AIMD–97–110).

PRINTED COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS

REPORTS

House Report 105–100—Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—

Fiscal Year 1998.

House Report 105–116—Conference Report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998.

House Report 105–149—Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

House Report 105–217—Conference Report on the Balanced Budget

Act of 1997.

House Report 105–555—Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—

Fiscal Year 1999.

PRINTED HEARINGS

105–1—Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is Good for Americans, February 5, 1997.

105–2—President Clinton’s Fiscal Year 1998 Budget, February 11,

1997.

105–3—CBO Budget Outlook and Analysis of President Clinton’s

Budget Proposal, February 13, 1997.

105–4—Consumer Price Index, March 4, 1997.

105–5—CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year

1998 Budget, March 6, 1997.

105–6—U.S. Treasury Department’s Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request, March 11, 1997.

105–7—Revisions in the CPI Calculation, March 12, 1997.

105–8—Protecting the Future of Social Security, September 24,

1997.

105–9—Addressing Our Long-Term Budget Challenges, October 8,

1997.

105–10—Securing America’s Future: Preparing the Nation for the

21st Century, October 23, 1997.

105–11—The Administration’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, February 3, 1998.

105–12—CBO Budget Outlook and Analysis of President Clinton’s

Budget Proposal, February 5, 1998.

105–13—State of the Economy, March 4, 1998.

105–82—Joint Hearing on the Management of the United States

Forest Service, March 26, 1998.

TASK FORCE

BUDGET PROCESS REFORM HEARINGS

13–1—Converting the Concurrent Budget Resolution Into a Joint

Resolution: Should the Budget Be a Law?, March 31, 1998.

13–2—Budget Projections and Baselines, April 1, 1998.
38

13–3—Budgeting of Government Insurance Programs and Contingent Liabilities, April 23, 1998.

13–4—Members’ Views on Budget Process Reform, June 18, 1998.

13–5—Budgetary Treatment of Emergencies, June 23, 1998.

COMMITTEE PRINTS

CP–1—Views and Estimates of Committees of the House on the

Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 1998, May 1997.

CP–2—Views and Estimates of Committees of the House on the

Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 1999, April 1998.

BUDGET COMMITTEE MAJORITY PUBLICATIONS LIST

These publications were made available to the public by the Republican caucus of the Budget Committee but were not officially

adopted by the committee and therefore may not reflect the views of

all its members.

1. Background on the Budget—A Briefing Paper on the Budget

Process for the 105th Congress. January 8, 1997.

2. Why We Must Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment—[Pocket

folder]. January 21, 1997.

3. Helping the President Meet the Budget Credibility Test—Criteria for the Administration’s Budget Submission for Fiscal

Year 1998—[White paper]. February 4, 1997.

4. Helping the President Meet the Budget Credibility Test—Criteria for the Administration’s Budget Submission for Fiscal

Year 1998—[Pocket folder]. February 4, 1997.

5. Balancing the budget—Helping American Families Today and

Tomorrow. [An Update on the Budget Environment for the

105th Congress] February 5, 1997.

6. The Clinton Budget for Fiscal Year 1998—An Analysis by the

House Budget Committee February 5, 1997 [revised February

10, 1997].

7. For America’s Families—The Republican Budget Strategy for the

105th Congress. [Slide Show]. February 8, 1997.

8. Cracks in the Clinton Plan—Why the President Should Submit

Another Budget. [White Paper]. March 5 1997.

9. Cracks in the Clinton Plan—Why the President Should Submit

Another Budget. [Pocket folder]. March 5, 1997.

10. What’s at Stake for America’s Families—The Budget Debate for

Fiscal Year 1998. [A Presentation for Republican House Members by the House Committee on the Budget Majority]. March

19, 1997.

11. Claims Versus the Facts—About the Balanced Budget Plan.

[White Paper]. May 7, 1997.

12. The Balanced Budget Plan of 1997—Summary of Major Components of the Agreement Between Congress and the President.

May 9, 1997.

13. The Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997—Summary of Major

Assumptions. [White Paper]. May 19, 1997.

14. Talking Points on the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997—

May 20, 1997.

15. Reconciliation Summary—Fiscal Year 1998—Summary of Provisions as Reported to the House Committee on the Budget.

June 18, 1997.
39

16. Summary of Revenue Reconciliation—Fiscal Year 1998—Summary of Provisions as Reported to the House Committee on the

Budget. June 18, 1997.

17. Reconciliation Highlights—Summary of Major Provisions Reported to the House Committee on the Budget. June 20, 1997.

18. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R. 2015)—Highlights of

Provisions as Revised: Incorporating the manager’s amendment revisions self-executed in the rule at the request of John

R. Kasich, Chairman, House Committee on the Budget. June

25, 1997.

19. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R. 2015)—Summary of

Provisions as Revised: Incorporating the manager’s amendment revisions self-executed in the rule at the request of John

R. Kasich, Chairman, House Committee on the Budget. June

26, 1997.

20. Protecting the Future of Social Security—Background information for Republican Budget Committee members for the hearing on the Chilean Social Security system. September 24, 1997.

21. After Balance, What Next?—Background information for the

Budget Committee hearing concerning how to address projected budget surpluses. October 23, 1997.

22. Facing the Challenge of the 21st Century—A series of notes

and charts for House Majority Members concerning long-term

budget challenges. November 3, 1997.

23. Reinventing the Era of Big Government?—Analysis of the

President’s budget submission for fiscal year 1999. February 3,

1998.

24. The State of the Economy and Related Issues—Background for

the committee hearing with Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board

of Governors, Federal Reserve System. March 4, 1998.

25. Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 1999—Report 105–555. May 27, 1998.

26. Shrinking Government So We Can Relieve Families of the Marriage Penalty—[Summary of the House budget resolution for

fiscal year 1999]. June 4, 1998.

27. Talking Points on the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1999—

Republican Members’ Packet. June 4, 1998.

28. Whose Budget Policies Have Worked?—[Handout comparing

Clinton and Republican budget strategies]. September 30,

1998.

29. Our Record Versus the Clinton Rhetoric—[Pocket folder comparing Republican and Clinton records]. October 9, 1998.

30. Giving Something Back to America’s Families—[Pocket folder].

October 9, 1998.

31. Deficit Time Line—[Pocket folder outlining congressional action

toward balancing the budget]. October 9, 1998.

32. Bill Clinton’s Balanced Budget Two-Step—[Pocket folder]. October 9, 1998.

BUDGET COMMITTEE MINORITY PUBLICATIONS LIST

These publications were made available to the public by the

Democratic caucus of the Budget Committee but were not officially

adopted by the committee and therefore may not reflect the views of

all its members.
40

1. Summary of President Clinton’s FY 1998 Budget—[Short Summary]. February 6, 1997.

2. A Summary of President Clinton’s FY 1998 Budget—[Long Summary]. February 10, 1997.

3. Preliminary Summary of the 1998 Budget Agreement—May 4,

1997.

4. Summary of the Fiscal Year 1998 House Budget Resolution—

May 19, 1997.

5. Summary of Chairman Archer’s Tax Package—[Briefing Paper].

June 11, 1997.

6. Summary and Analysis of Fiscal Year 1998 Spending Reconciliation Bill—June 23, 1997.

7. Preliminary Summary of the conference Agreement on H.R. 2014

Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997—July 31, 1997.

8. Summary of the Conference Agreement on H.R. 2014, Revenue

Reconciliation Act of 1997—[Updated Summary]. August 8,

1997.

9. Brief Summary of the Conference Agreement on H.R. 2015 FY

1998 Budget Reconciliation Act—[Preliminary Summary]. July

29, 1997.

10. Summary of the Conference Agreement on H.R. 2015, FY 1998

Budget Reconciliation Act—September 4, 1997.

11. The Disappearing Deficit: A Democratic Victory—[Background

Information]. October 27, 1997.

12. Briefing Paper on Social Security—[Briefing Paper]. November

7, 1997.

13. Summaries of the Budget Process Reform Act (H.R. 1372) and

the National Debt Repayment Act (H.R. 2191)—[Materials prepared for Democratic staff briefing on budget process reform].

November 20, 1997.

14. The Budget is Balanced Now!—A Democratic Party Success—

[Background Information]. January 27, 1998.

15. The Application of Federal Employment Laws to TANF

Workfare Activities—[Briefing Paper]. January 28, 1998.

16. Strengths and Weaknesses of Capital Budget Accounting—[Testimony by Representative John M. Spratt, Jr. and Richard

Kogan before the President’s Commission to Study Capital

Budgeting]. January 30, 1998.

17. A Preliminary Summary of President Clinton’s Fiscal Year

1999 Budget—[Short Summary]. February 2, 1998.

18. A Summary of President Clinton’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget—

[Long Summary]. February 6 1998.

19. The Balanced Budget: A Democratic Victory—[Background Information]. March 5, 1998.

20. Background Information on Taxes—March 20, 1998.

21. Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Budget and Policy

Issues—[Briefing Paper]. March 23, 1998.

22. The Budget Situation for Fiscal Year 1999—[Background Information]. March 25, 1998.

23. The Marriage Penalty and Related Proposals—[Briefing Paper].

April 23, 1998.

24. Child Care for American Families—[Briefing Paper]. April 29,

1998.
41

25. Highlights of May 12 Draft Republican Budget Resolution—

[Briefing Paper]. May 13, 1998.

26. Republican Cuts: Much Deeper Than 1%—[Background Materials on the House Republican Budget Resolution]. May 20,

1998.

27. Deep Republican Cuts in Non-Defense Discretionary Spending—[Graphs]. May 20, 1998.

28. Description of Non-Defense Discretionary Cuts—[Background

Materials on the House Republican Budget Resolution]. May

20, 1998.

29. The Marriage Penalty and the Republican Budget—[Background Materials on the House Republican Budget Resolution].

May 20, 1998.

30. Summary and Analysis of the House Republican Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1999—June 1, 1998.

31. Summary and Analysis of the Republican II Plan for Fiscal

Year 1999—[Long Summary]. June 4, 1998.

32. The Democratic Budget Plan: Summary—[Fact Sheet]. June 4,

1998.

33. The Democratic Plan vs. the Republican II Plan: Major Differences—[Fact Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

34. The Republican Budget—Housing Aid is a Broken Promise—

[Fact Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

35. Highlights of Republican II Entitlement Spending Cuts—[Fact

Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

36. Republicans Cut and Weaken Education—[Fact Sheet]. June 4,

1998.

37. Republican Budget Cuts Veterans’ Programs—[Fact Sheet].

June 4, 1998.

38. Who Puts Families First? Republican Cuts Hurt Low-Income

Working Families—[Fact Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

39. The Republican Transportation Budget: Paved with Good Intentions?—[Fact Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

40. The Democratic Budget—Protecting the Health of All Americans—[Fact Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

41. The Democratic Budget Protects Justice Programs—[Fact

Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

42. A $25 Billion Black Hole in the Republican Budget—[Fact

Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

43. It’s Not Where You Start, It’s Where You Finish: Republican

Budget Cuts Are Much Deeper Than the Advertised 1 Percent—[Fact Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

44. The Democratic Budget Protects the Environment—[Fact

Sheet]. June 4, 1998.

45. The Republican Assault on The Environment—[Fact Sheet].

June 4, 1998.

46. Frequently Asked Questions About the Federal Budget, Part

I—[Background Information]. June 25, 1998.

47. Republican Delays in Passing a Budget Resolution—[Background Information]. July 14, 1998.

48. Overview of the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Picture—[Background

Information]. July 15, 1998.

49. Frequently Asked Questions About the Federal Budget, Part

II—[Background Information]. July 29, 1998.
42

50. Student Loan Issues in the Higher Education Act Reauthorization—[Background Information]. August 3, 1998.

51. The Budget Surplus: a Democratic Victory—[Background Information]. September 30, 1998.

52. Description of New and Expanded Medicare Benefits—[Background Information]. October 8, 1998.

Æ