resources that are threatened with degradation, and protect public health and safety. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Fund: $100 million Funds implementation of a private landowners incentive program for the recovery of endangered and threatened species and the habitat that they depend on. Ocean Fish/ Wildlife Conservation, Restoration, and Management: $300 million Funding for the conservation, restoration and management of ocean fish and wildlife of the United States through formula grants to coastal states (including Great Lakes States) and competitive, peer-reviewed grants to private entities. Native Fish/Wildlife Conservation, Restoration, Management: $350 million Provides funding for the conservation, restoration and management of native fish, wildlife and plants through formula grants to the states for the development and implementation of comprehensive plans. Farmland and Open Space Preservation Grants: $150 million Matching, competitive grants to state, local and tribal governments for open space planning, acquisition and administration of threatened farmland and urban forests, to help communities grow in ways that ensure a high quality of life and strong, sustainable economic growth. COMPARISON OF H.R. 798 (MILLER-BOXER) WITH OTHER 'Landrieu-Murkowski (S. 25) and Young-Dingell (H.R. 701) would pay for their proposals by diverting a percentage from the gross OCS receipts; calculated to equal $2.8 Billion in 2000. 2 Includes $50M for open space grants. 'Includes funding for federal CZMA, oceans, coral reef and marine sanctuaries | programs. *Funding in addition to Administration's request. 'Equal to Administration's Forest Legacy; Farmland Protection, Urban Forestry, Smart Growth proposals. "In addition to 8(g) payments estimated to total $105M in FY2000 to Alaska-Alabama-California-Florida-LouisianaMississippi and Texas. A total of $2.7 Billion has been allocated to these 7 States since 1986under section 8(g). I am pleased to transmit the views and estimates adopted by the Rules Committee regarding the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget. The Committee is pleased that the President is focusing his attention on the need to save Social Security, prioritize education spending and increase defense spending. At the same time, the Committee is disappointed that the President has ignored the need for meaningful tax relief in his budget agenda. Tax relief is essential because the extra tax revenue flowing into the government was never anticipated by Congress. Tax revenues have been rising an average of 7.6 percent a year since 1992, or roughly three times the rate of inflation. In 1992, Washington collected $1.1 trillion in taxes; this year, it will collect $1.8 trillion. Despite the benefits of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the tax take on the American people is the highest in our nation's peacetime history. In the 3rd quarter of 1998, Federal tax revenue hit 21.8% of GDP, the highest recorded level in American history, exceeding even the percentages reached in WWII (19.9%), the Korean War (20.1%), and the Vietnam War (20.7%). As a result, the President's budget, along with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), projects a continued increase in the budget surplus over the next five years. Fueled by strong economic growth, lower levels of projected government spending and overburdened taxpayers, the budget will boast an actual on-budget surplus (excluding Social Security) beginning in 2001 and continuing into the out years as a result of these taxpayer overcharges. A more efficient and competitive private sector, combined with a sound monetary policy, have resulted in skyrocketing tax receipts producing the first on-budget surplus since 1960. The Rules Committee looks forward to working with Members of the House and the Senate, and the Administration in confronting the budget challenges arising in this era of over-taxation. Even after saving Social Security, Congress and the Administration will face new challenges and opportunities as we work to reduce the excessive tax burden, pay the national debt and prioritize government spending. Page 2 of 3: As you know, the Committee on Rules does not have legislative jurisdiction over specific spending or revenue measures required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to be included in a budget resolution. However, section 301(c) of the Budget Act does grant the Rules Committee sequential referral authority over any matter or procedure included in a budget resolution which has the effect of changing any rule of the House. Moreover, as required by clause 3(i) of rule X of the Rules of the House, the Rules Committee has played a proactive role in budget reform, especially in recent years with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the Line Item Veto Act. During the 105th Congress, our committees worked extensively together and across party lines to develop the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, introduced on October 14, 1998 as H.R. 4837. This broad reform proposal should serve as a starting point for our committees' work and ultimately the House's consideration of fundamental changes in the budget process. Two specific process-related reforms are proposed in the President's FY 2000 budget submission: biennial budgeting and expedited rescission authority. Regarding biennial budgeting, the President states: “An arrangement that required the President's budget and the Congressional budget resolution to lock in (perhaps through a joint resolution) aggregate levels for each of two fiscal years - or more - would essentially codify the current practice of making a budget "deal" on the aggregates for several years and appropriating within those amounts." With numerous legislative measures on biennial budgeting pending before both the Rules and the Budget Committees, this is a matter deserving of further consideration. Furthermore, the Committee is intrigued by the President's comments regarding a joint budget resolution and will follow up on and examine the ramifications of such a proposal. The Rules Committee played the primary role in the development of the Line Item Veto Act. After last year's Supreme Court ruling finding that statute unconstitutional, Members of the Rules Committee pledged to renew their efforts to devise legislation that is constitutionally sound, and to achieve the goals of enhanced accountability and fiscal discipline over spending. Likewise, the President has stated that "expedited rescission authority would be a useful tool for the President and Congress in their efforts to ensure the effective use of taxpayer dollars." Agreeing with these principles, the Committee intends to review the existing rescission process outlined in Title X of the Budget Act and to consider proposals for reform such as expedited rescission authority. Overall, the Rules Committee intends to continue to work closely with the Budget Committee to maintain fiscal discipline in the congressional budget process as Congress considers various spending and revenue measures for fiscal year 2000. In addition to its jurisdiction over the budget process, the Committee intends to focus considerable energy on issues relating to oversight of executive departments and agencies by |