trification Act of 1936 (§ 1201). The House passed an exemption from Federal procurement law for the Commodity Credit Corporation regarding the crop reinsurance program (§ 1405(c)).

The House and Senate Agriculture Committees, which reported title I, acknowledged existing exemptions in current law and adopted the position of the Committee on Government Operations, deleting the procurement exemption provisions from the Conference Report.

The House passed an exemption from the Cash Management Improvement Act (§ 4002). The House passed amendments to title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, creating a new section 456 (Contracts), providing an exemption from Federal procurement law (§ 4002). The House passed an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 [BBEDCA] regarding the application of a sequester for the student loan program (§ 4029).

The House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which reported title IV, acknowledged the exemptions in existing law and adopted the position of the Government Operations Committee, deleting the procurement exemption from the conference report. The committees also recognized the exemption of a new entitlement could adversely impact other important entitlement programs by forcing these other entitlement programs to bear a larger burden of any sequester and deleted exemption from BBEDCĂ from the conference report. The waiver of the Cash Management Improvement Act, which was not opposed by the Committee on Government Operations, was retained.

The House passed measures providing for the universal access to childhood immunizations, amending title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, by creating a new section 2158 ("Contracts With Manufacturers of Pediatric Vaccines"). The new section 2158(b)(3)(B) amends 5 U.S.C. §552(b) ("The Freedom of Information Act") clarifying that commercial or financial information obtained under this authority is considered to be privileged and confidential information for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (§5181). The House also created the Childhood Immunization Trust Fund, exempting it from the application of BBEDCA (§ 5181).

The House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee reported the provisions of title V. The House legislation created a new $2.6 billion childhood immunization entitlement and authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into contracts with the manufacturers of vaccines, with a negotiated profit level, in advance of appropriations. The conference report follows through with the commitment to the new entitlement program for children. However, funding constraints limited the program to $500 million. The reporting committees further acknowledged the exemption of a new entitlement from the budgetary discipline of BBEDCA raised potentially adverse consequences by forcing other entitlement programs to bear a larger burden of any sequester and deleted the BBEDCA exemption. Additionally, the committees acknowledged the exemption from procurement law under current law and adopted the position

of the Committee on Government Operations, deleting the procurement exemption from the conference report.

The House passed a provision requiring the President to "transmit with materials related to each budget an estimate of unfunded future liabilities of the Federal Government that are not accounted for in the budget itself. Such estimate shall include (but not be limited to) liabilities for future remediation of environmental and natural resources damage, and cleaning up waste sites, on Federal lands" (§ 9008).

The House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works Committees deleted the requirement from the conference report.

The House also passed an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, limiting the application of a potential sequester to Medicare administrative costs (§ 13560). The provision was deleted from the conference report by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

The House extended the discretionary spending cap and "Pay-AsYou-Go" enforcement mechanisms of BBEDCA (§§ 15100–15112). The House passed amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, setting new discretionary spending limits for budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 199498 and, for purposes of portions of section 251-252 of BBEDCA, exempting new budget authority, outlays, and receipts from determinations made under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (§ 15206). The House created the Deficit Reduction Trust Fund (§ 15301). The House created an entitlement and revenue review process (§§ 16001-16011).

A point of order, under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, precluded adoption of the budget process legislation through reconciliation. The administration supports the compromise represented by the House-passed Entitlement Review and Deficit Reduction Fund legislation and implemented the provisions through Executive Orders No. 12857 (budget control) and 12858 (deficit reduction fund), signed on August 4, 1993. Both Houses of Congress extended the maximum discretionary spending levels and the "PayAs-You-Go" requirements of the Budget Enforcement Act through 1998 (title XV, subtitle A). The section 306 point of order was waived by Senate Budget Committee Ranking Minority Pete Domenici for these provisions only.

On May 13, 1993, the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security held a hearing regarding the extension of the budget enforcement provisions of the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act through reconciliation. The following witnesses offered testimony: Martin Olav Sabo, chairman, House Budget Committee; John R. Kasich, ranking republican member, House Budget Committee; Robert D. Reischauer, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Following the hearing, the committee worked in conjunction with the Committees on Budget, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Rules, and other interested caucuses of the House to develop entitlement and revenue review legislation which would address concerns raised by the House membership.

The House passed H.R. 2264 on May 27, 1993, by a vote of 219213. The Senate passed a different version of H.R. 2264 on June

25, 1993, by a vote of 50-49. On August 5, the House approved the conference report by a vote of 218-216. On August 6, the Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 51-50. H.R. 2264 was signed into law on August 10, 1993 (Public Law 103-66).

h. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993; H.R. 1578.-H.R. 1578 expands Presidential rescission authority, created by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and proposes a process that: (1) Enables the President to propose the rescission of budget authority for appropriated items, provided the rescission message is submitted to Congress within 3 days of signing an appropriations bill; (2) requires the Appropriations Committee to report the President's rescissions for a vote in the House within 10 legislative days which, if approved, are sent to the Senate for similar consideration and forwarded to the President if approved by the Senate; (3) permits the Appropriations Committee to report an alternative rescission proposal.

Should the President's proposed rescissions be defeated, the Appropriations Committee alternative rescission proposal, if reported, is automatically considered by the House. If approved, the House alternative rescission proposal is sent to the Senate, along with the President's rescission proposal. If no rescission proposal is approved, spending for the items named in the President's rescission proposal must proceed.

President Clinton's budget called for the enactment of enhanced rescission authority. The OMB document "A Vision of Change for America" noted: "The budget will support enactment of enhanced rescission authority legislation that would require expeditious Congressional action on Presidential rescissions

.

Following the submission of the administration's budget request, the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee held a hearing on March 10, 1993, entitled "Expedited Rescission Authority for the President" to develop the proposal. The following witnesses furnished testimony: Minority Leader Robert Michel; Representative Charles Stenholm; Representative Christopher Cox; Leon Panetta, Director, Office of Management and Budget; Milton Socolar, Special Assistant to the Comptroller-General of the General Accounting Office; Robert D. Reischauer, Director of the Congressional Budget Office; Dr. Louis Fisher, Congressional Research Service; and Joseph White, the Brookings Institution.

H.R. 1578, legislation to implement enhanced rescission authority, was introduced on April 1, 1993, by Representative Spratt, on behalf of himself, Chairman Conyers and 31 additional original cosponsors and was jointly referred to the Committee on Government Operations and the Committee on Rules. On April 2, 1993, H. Res. 149, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1578, was called up by the House as a privileged matter, considered on the House floor and withdrawn. On April 28, 1993, the House passed H. Res. 149 by recorded vote of 212-208 and H.R. 1578 was considered by the House. On April 29, 1993, the House passed H.R. 1578, as amended by H. Res. 149, by recorded vote of 258-157. On May 4, 1993, H.R. 1578 was referred to the Senate Committees on Budget and Governmental Affairs.

i. National Historical Publications and Records Commission; H.R. 2139. The purpose of H.R. 2139 is to reauthorize appropria

tions for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 at such amounts as may be necessary. The National Historical Publications and Records Commission gives grants to promote the preservation, collection, and publication of important public and private papers. The Commission is administratively part of the National Archives and Records Administration.

On June 23, 1993, the Subcommittee on Information, Justice, Transportation, and Agriculture reported H.R. 2139 to the full committee. The full committee ordered the bill reported on July 28, 1993. The committee reported the bill to the House on August 4, 1993 (H. Rept. 103-215). H.R. 2139 passed the House on September 13, 1993. The bill passed the Senate with amendments on March 17, 1994, and the House agreed to the Senate amendments on May 18, 1994. H.R. 2139 became Public Law 103-262 on May 31, 1994.

j. The Ban on Smoking in Federal Buildings Act; H.R. 881.-H.R. 881 prohibits smoking in Federal buildings except in designated areas. The bill, as amended, was reported by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation on October 15, 1993, and was then sequentially referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Following consultation and an exchange of letters between the two committees, the Committee on Government Operations was discharged on November 12, 1993, from further consideration of the bill. During consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives, the Committee on Public Works and Transportation offered an amendment that addressed the concerns of the Committee on Government Operations. The House of Representatives approved the bill as amended by voice vote, under suspension of the rules, on November 15, 1993. The bill was placed on the Senate calendar on November 22, 1993, and no further action was taken.

k. Making Appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and Certain Independent Agencies for Fiscal Year 1994; H.R. 2403.-Section 527 of the bill (H.R. 2403) was the subject of negotiations between the Committee on Government Operations and the Committee on Appropriations. As enacted, the section authorizes GSA to transfer so much of a parcel of land it controls in the city of Waltham, MA, as GSA determines it no longer needs. The language assures that any transfer of property determined to be surplus would be transferred for a public purpose under section 203(k) of the Federal Property Act and that there would be an enlarged window of opportunity to apply for a transfer for educational use. The measure became Public Law 103-123; October 28, 1993.

1. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994; H.R. 2401. This measure as passed by the House and Senate (as S. 1298), contained a number of provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and on October 19, 1993, members of the committee were appointed as conferees on such provisions.

In addition, two amendments based on committee investigations were adopted as part of the fiscal 1994 authorization-a comprehensive annual report on DOD reimbursement of contractor environmental cleanup costs (Public Law 103-160, section 1001 (c),

see discussion in section II.A.) and restrictions on further payments to the C-17 Airlifter contractor (Public Law 103-160, section 134, see discussion in part two, II.B.).

Many provisions in the bills concerned the control, utilization, and disposition of Federal property to which the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 are or would be made applicable. They included several provisions relating to transfers of property for community assistance at bases closed under base closure and realignment statutes. In accordance with long-established House precedent, that act is within the legislative jurisdiction of the committee.

Mounting interest in speeding up economic recovery of communities where military bases are to close again focussed on facilitating early reuse of the base closure property for such a purpose. In addition to growing congressional interest, the President announced his own program on July 2, 1993, for revitalizing base closure communities through transfer of base assets to the local communities. Existing law governing disposal of base closure property was the Federal Property Act, which authorized no cost transfers to local public organizations for certain public purposes like education, public health, and recreation. Transfers for the purpose of economic development, however, required the recipient to pay estimated fair market value. Various provisions appeared in the House and Senate Defense authorization bills to make acquisition of base closure property for economic redevelopment more affordable to the communities. Chairman Conyers proposed as a basis for discussion an amendment to the Federal Property Act so that surplus property could be transferred at up to 50 percent of market value to a public body whose area had been adversely impacted by a base closure, provided that the property would be used for economic development purposes. The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee held a hearing on July 14, 1993, on the proposal.

The proposal was not included among en bloc amendments_approved by the Committee on Rules. The House approved instead an amendment to establish a pilot program for testing no-cost transfers in connection with developing economic revitalization criteria within adversely affected communities (section 2822). Five installations were specifically designated for the program. A major amendment offered by Chairman Conyers and approved by the House and Senate amended section 203 of the Federal Property Act to authorize the no-cost transfer of suitable surplus real property at baseclosure installations for the development or operation of a waterport facility, thereby putting such a purpose on the same publicbenefit footing as that which Congress in 1947 provided in connection with a public airport purpose. This amendment became section 2927 of Public Law 103-160.

Unlike the House bill, the Senate-passed bill incorporated a series of provisions establishing a broadly different regime for the utilization and disposal of real property, as well as related personal property, made releasable by base closures. They were tied together by the thread of facilitating local acquisition of property at reduced cost or no cost. This had the effect of providing an alternative regime supplementary to the existing regime based on the Federal Property Act. The breadth and generality of the Senate provisions

1