home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The World of Computer Software
/
World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso
/
c
/
cbts.zip
/
CBTSRP.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-01-11
|
80KB
|
1,424 lines
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION FOUNDATION
404 Eighth Street N.E.
Washington D.C. 20002
(202) 543-1303
FAX (202) 543-2024
CBTS Report #4 December 30, 1992
Viewing the Outlines of Future Policy:
Legislative Development and Advocacy
in the 102nd Congress
Patterns of legislative sponsorship and cosponsorship tell
us much about the culture of the 102nd Congress and the forces of
budgetary change. Although most bills are never enacted into
law, they reflect expressions of intent by individual members of
Congress. By quantifying and aggregating these expressions, we
can view the rough outlines of future policy. What we see is not
comforting: The legislative momentum established in the 102nd
Congress, combined with institutional values that discourage
priority-setting, will push the 103rd Congress toward ever higher
levels of spending, taxes and deficits--with health care spending
being the area of greatest growth.
This report summarizes the findings of the Congressional
Budget Tracking System (CBTS), a computerized accounting program
that tallies the cost of major spending legislation introduced in
Congress. The data was developed by cross-indexing each member's
sponsorship and cosponsorship records with cost estimates for 756
Senate bills and 1,305 House bills introduced in the 102nd
Congress. Among our findings --
o Members of Congress introduced bills to increase spending by
a gross total of $4.83 trillion, while proposing cuts of
only $448 billion. Although many of these proposals
overlap, this ratio of $11 of increases for every dollar of
cuts reflects overwhelming pressure on the budget.
o Of the $448 billion in proposed spending reductions, 45
percent were across-the-board measures that failed to
specify which programs to cut, or how to cut them. When
only specific spending bills are tallied, the ratio of
proposed increases to cuts is nearly 20 to 1.
o Excluding overlapping proposals, the enactment of every bill
before the House would cause federal spending to rise by a
net of $1.0 trillion--a 60 percent hike in spending. In the
Senate spending would also rise by a net of $1.0 trillion.
o Health care legislation comprised 15 percent of the bills in
this study. The average health care bill would increase
annual federal spending by $15.2 billion.
Looking at individual legislators, we found --
o Only 131 members of Congress wrote bills to reduce spending,
compared with 411 who authored measures to increase it.
o Only 49 members of Congress (13 senators and 36
representatives) sponsored or cosponsored legislation that,
on balance, would have cut spending. However, just one
member proposed cuts that would have shaved the deficit by
more than 20 percent.
o Ninety one members of Congress (9 senators and 82
representatives) endorsed bills to increase spending by more
than $200 billion, while 47 members (3 senators and 44 House
members) sponsored more than $300 billion in new spending.
o House members supported a mean-average of $77.0 billion in
higher spending, while senators sponsored an average of
$48.0 billion in increases. The median for the two chambers
was $22.5 billion and $22.8 billion, respectively.
The study also provided insight into the potential character
and temperament of the next Congress and administration --
o The two members of Congress named to key economic posts in
the Clinton cabinet, Rep. Leon Panetta (OMB Director) and
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (Treasury Secretary), sponsored
legislation to reduce spending by a combined $885 million.
o The four delegates who served full terms in the 102nd
Congress sponsored bills to increase spending by an average
of $222.6 billion. The House leadership recently announced
delegates would be permitted to vote on floor amendments in
the 103rd Congress for the first time ever.
o The 13 Republicans who lost their 1992 reelection bids
supported an average of $18.2 billion in higher spending,
compared to $10.0 billion for the 130 winners.
o The 29 Democrats who lost in the 1992 elections supported an
average of $122.7 billion, compared to an average of $121.6
billion for the 199 winners.
o The 172 House members with less than 8 years seniority
supported an average of $65.0 billion in higher spending
compared to $84.8 billion for the 267 members with more than
8 years of seniority. Freshmen averaged $54.3 billion.
o The 63 senators with less than 8 years seniority sponsored
an average of $63.3 billion in higher spending compared to
$38.6 billion for members with more than 8 years. Six
senators elected or appointed since 1990 proposed an average
of $104.4 billion in higher spending.
o Hawaii's House and Senate delegations had the highest totals
in both chambers, averaging $339 billion and $287 billion,
respectively. Colorado's delegation had the lowest totals
in the House, endorsing an average of $.7 billion in
spending reductions. Idaho's delegation came in lowest in
the Senate, with cuts averaging $13.6 billion.
II. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
The development and cosponsorship of bills are intermediate
stages in the legislative process. By examining these stages of
activity in any Congress, we can gain insights into the forces
shaping future budgets, as well as identify the individual
legislators and congressional coalitions that originate these
pressures. Budgetary outcomes are also affected by such factors
as the state of the economy, international events, constitutional
constraints, and the procedural constraints Congress imposes on
itself. Yet it remains that legislation and its advocacy are the
essential raw materials of policy. Our findings provide a
troubling portrait of a legislature whose value system is ill-
suited to the task of budgetary management.
Patterns of legislative sponsorship and cosponsorship in the
102nd Congress were heavily skewed toward measures to increase
spending. Pressures to increase spending were effectively 20
times greater than those to cut specific programs. The data
point to a budgetary ratchet, where current programs are rarely
challenged (or are challenged only in the abstract) while
institutional energies are focused almost exclusively on
expansion. Against the backdrop of a structural deficit that is
projected to grow on its own to $514 billion over the next
decade, this allocation of effort is evidence of a dysfunctional
legislative culture.
Pressures on the Budget
The data in Table 1 illustrate the extent of the bias in
Congress' legislative workload. The ratio of proposed spending
increase to decrease bills for both chambers is 4.8 to 1. This
imbalance is amplified by a 2.3 to 1 difference in the magnitude
of the respective bill types.
However, these numbers do not tell the full story. The
$448.2 billion of gross spending reductions proposed in the 102nd
Congress includes $202.5 billion (45 percent) in across-the-board
measures that do not specify which programs to cut, or how to cut
them. Although such bills would indeed cut spending (typically
through the sequestration of appropriations when budgets exceed
targets) they reflect more a general expression of budgetary
principle than specific opposition to the programs affected. At
best, they are designed to serve as "an axe over Congress' head"
if it fails to meet spending targets through more discriminating
choices. At worst, they are intended to mask agendas dominated
by bills to increase spending (for example, many sponsors of
across-the-board spending reductions also sponsored tens of
billions in specific spending increases). Tallying only specific
spending measures, the ratio of proposed increases to cuts is
almost 20 to 1.
Table 1
Major Spending Legislation
in the 102nd Congress
(millions of dollars)
More Less Ratio of
Spending Spending More to Less
Number of Bills
House 990 217 4.6 to 1
Senate 604 115 5.3 to 1
Avg. Cost of Bills (in $ millions)
House $2,828 -$1,453 2.0 to 1
Senate $3,354 -$1,155 2.9 to 1
Net Cost of All Bills (in $ millions)
House $1,242,861 -$242,265 5.1 to 1
Senate $1,159,889 -$118,032 9.8 to 1
Gross Cost of All Bills (in $ millions)
House $2,799,369 -$315,307 8.9 to 1
Senate $2,025,635 -$132,866 15.3 to 1
Combined $4,825,004 -$448,173 10.8 to 1
Effects of CBTS
The data in Table 2 suggest that publicity surrounding the
CBTS study helped moderate congressional sponsorship behavior
during the second session of the 102nd Congress. Data for the
first nine months of the Congress--the period covered by the
study before any results were made public--showed much larger
imbalances than occurred later on. At the nine month benchmark,
the Congress had introduced bills to increase spending by $43 for
every dollar of cuts. Meanwhile, only one member of Congress had
sponsored bills whose total effect would have been to cut
spending. Following the release of CBTS data, 22 percent of
Congress--23 Senators and 95 representatives--reduced their
sponsorship totals. By the conclusion of the 102nd Congress, the
ratio of proposed increases to cuts had fallen to 10.8 to 1,
while 49 members had sponsored more cuts than increases.
This turnaround markedly reduced the earlier imbalance. But
whether it represented the beginnings of cultural change or a
superficial response to controversy remains to be seen. To the
extent that the latter motive predominated, the data in Table 1
may understate the imbalance of budgetary pressures in Congress.
Table 2
Members With Selected Sponsorship Totals
In the 102nd Congress
Less Than More Than
$0 $5 Bil. $200 Bil. $300 Bil.
House
Sept. 11, 1991 1 59 57 11
Entire 102nd 36 57 82 44
Senate
Sept. 11, 1991 0 15 1 1
Entire 102nd 13 19 9 3
Efforts to Cut
A particularly striking feature of the data is the lack of
development and promotion of legislation to reduce spending.
Only 131 members of the House and Senate wrote bills to reduce
spending, compared to 411 members who wrote bills to increase it.
A far smaller minority wrote bills that would significantly
reduce spending. In the House 16 members (3.6 percent of the
membership) authored more than 90 percent of the proposed
spending cuts, while in the Senate nine members (9 percent)
proposed 90 percent of the cuts. Six members of Congress wrote
more than half of all spending cut proposals. In general,
authors of spending reductions tended to be junior in the
congressional hierarchy. In neither chamber did the leadership
of either party author a bill to cut specific spending. More
than half of the spending reductions in the Senate, and a third
of those in the House were rescissions proposed by the President.
This aversion to reducing current spending cannot be
explained solely by ideological differences. Most self-described
opponents of government activism endorsed more spending increases
than decreases. Meanwhile, even ferverent proponents of
government activism believe some spending is wasteful. That
neither side makes significant efforts to eliminate objectionable
items from the budget is evidence of a legislative culture that
places a higher value on avoiding conflict with colleagues and
interest groups than on fiscal responsibility. By discouraging
the pitting of one priority against another these values
undermine the very essence of budgeting.
The Impact of Health Care
Our analysis shows that the 102nd Congress endorsed the
largest of spending increases in the field of health care--
already the fastest growing category of the current budget. Of
the 1,594 major bills examined in this study, 237 (15 percent)
were health bills. Of these, 96 percent proposed spending
increases, at an average annualized cost per bill of $15.2
billion. Altogether, health legislation accounted for 75 percent
($3.6 trillion) of the gross spending increases measured in the
study, and 26 percent of the net (offset) cost of bills in the
House and 51 percent in the Senate.
The overwhelming budgetary pressures generated by health
legislation traces mainly to 14 "single payer" universal health
care proposals (under which the government nationalizes health
insurance), each with estimated costs ranging from $65 to $508
billion per year (depending on the extent of nationalization
contemplated, the role assigned to lower levels of government,
and the veracity of the estimate). In addition, there were 14
other health system reform bills that ranged in cost from $1.4
billion to $60 billion per year. These included eight "pay or
play" and six "managed competition" proposals. Roughly a quarter
of the Congress endorsed at least one of these bills, indicating
a strong consensus in favor of higher health spending designed to
increase "access" to health services (i.e., insurance for the
uninsured) and, to a lesser degree, contain costs.
Not surprisingly, legislators who sponsored comprehensive
health care reforms had significantly higher sponsorship totals
than those who did not. As we show in Table 4, eliminating such
bills from the CBTS tally substantially reduces the mean totals
for both chambers--particularly for the House, where support for
"single payer" was most prevalent--although not the median. Yet,
with some notable exceptions, the members who endorsed "single
payer" as a health reform also endorsed other expensive
legislation. Eight of the 15 highest scoring senators in our
study are still among the top 15 when comprehensive health care
bills are excluded from the tally. Similarly, nine House members
made the top 15 in both tallies.
Table 3
Mean Cost of Bills Sponsored by Members, by Chamber
With and Without Universal Health Care
(millions of dollars)
More Less Ratio of
Spending Spending More to Less
Avg. Total Per Member
House $84,271 -$7,228 11.7 to 1
Senate $55,546 -$7,565 7.3 to 1
Avg. Total Per Member Without Universal Health
House $35,772 -$7,228 5.0 to 1
Senate $29,645 -$7,340 4.0 to 1
Areas of Likely Growth
In Table 4, we see that after health, support for higher
spending was strongest in programs affecting education, the
elderly, veterans, law enforcement, and children. In general, it
appeared that legislative development was most robust in the
categories of the budget that are already growing fastest, and
where interest groups are best organized.
Table 4
Areas of Legislative Emphasis*
in the 102nd Congress
Number and Gross Cost of Bills in CBTS
(in billions)
_____________________________________________________
Legislative No. of Gross
Category Bills Cost
_____________________________________________________
Health Care 237 3,613
Education 173 95
Elderly 153 452
National Defense 105 -28
Veterans Affairs 94 20
Law Enforcement 92 32
Children 71 49
Labor Related 35 123
_____________________________________________________
* Some bills listed in more than one category.
Returning Members
The data in Table 5 show that, in general, members of the
102nd Congress who will return for the 103rd Congress were more
prone to endorse spending increase bills than those who left
Congress via death, retirement or defeat. However, there were
large differences between chambers. For example, non-returning
House Democrats were 11 percent less likely to sponsor spending
increases than their returning counterparts, while departing
House Republicans were 11 percent more likely to endorse new
spending than returning Republicans. In the Senate, both parties
followed the same trend: Returning Republicans were 5.6 times
more likely to sponsor new spending than those who departed;
meanwhile, returning Democrats were twice as likely to endorse
higher spending as their departing colleagues. Thus, looking
only at returning members of Congress, it appears that the Senate
will be significantly more prone to endorse higher spending in
the 103rd Congress, while the House may be marginally so.
Table 5
Cost of Bills Endorsed
by Returning and Non-Returning
Members of 102nd Congress
(in billions)
Republicans Democrats
Combined
No. Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg.
House
Died 0 0 2 $199.8 2 $199.8
Defeated 13 $18.2 29 $122.1 42 $89.9
Retired 24 $(2.1) 41 $94.0 65 $58.5
Subtotal 37 $11.6 72 $108.8 109 $75.8
Returning - - - - 329 $77.5
Senate
Died 0 0 1 $61.9 1 $61.9
Defeated 2 $1.4 3 $30.0 5 $18.6
Retired 3 $2.3 5 $29.9 8 $19.5
Subtotal 5 $3.3 9 $37.5 14 $25.6
Returning - - - - 86 $51.9
The Freshmen
With a freshman class amounting to 23 percent of its
members, newcomers will play a key role in determining budgetary
outcomes in the 103rd Congress. Large partisan differences in
propensity to endorse spending increases and decreases suggest
that changes in the partisan mix of the two chambers may be the
most important factor in determining future budgetary pressures.
However, clues can be gleaned from comparisons of the sponsorship
records of members who recently came to Congress with those of
more senior members. With some notable exceptions, our findings
support the argument that members who have served in Congress the
longest are the most likely to originate such pressures.
In the Senate, for example, results were mixed: Republicans
elected since 1990 were far less likely to sponsor higher
spending than their more senior colleagues, but the two freshman
Democratic Senators were more prone to endorse higher spending
than senior members of their party. To the extent that these
trends hold, they again suggest that the Senate will be more
prone to endorse bills that create pressure on spending, taxes
and deficits in the 103rd Congress than it was in the 102nd. The
partisan makeup of the Senate did not change.
In the House, freshmen from both parties were significantly
less likely to endorse new spending than their more senior
colleagues; meanwhile, Republicans picked up ten seats in the
1992 election. Both factors suggest that the House will be less
likely to support higher spending in the 103rd Congress than it
was in the 102nd.
Table 6
Cost of Bills Endorsed in 102nd Congress
By Length of Service for Selected Terms
(in billions)
No. Avg.
Mbrs. Total
House
Above 12 158 $82.5
Below 12 280 $74.0
Above 8 267 $84.8
Below 8 171 $65.0
Freshmen 51 $54.3
Senate
Above 12 49 $44.2
Below 12 51 $51.6
Freshmen 6 $104.4
The Delegates
To the extent that patterns of sponsorship and cosponsorship
correspond with voting patterns, the recent decision by the House
leadership to permit the five non-voting delegates from the
District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Peurto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands to vote on floor amendments in the 103rd Congress
could militate against fiscal restraint. The sponsorship records
of the four returning delegates (Blaz will not return) suggest
that at least three are aligned with factions in Congress that
advocate higher spending and devote little effort to promoting
government economy. The four delegates who served full terms in
the 102nd Congress endorsed an average of $222.6 billion.
Table 7
The Cost of Bills Sponsored
and Cosponsored by Delegates
in the 102nd Congress
(in billions)
Delegate (Territory) More Less Net
Faleomavaega (Amer. Samoa) 298.0 -1.5 296.5
Norton (Dist. of Columbia) 413.5 -1.5 412.0
Blaz (Guam) 71.3 -2.1 69.2
*Colorado (Puerto Rico) 5.5 0.0 5.5
De Lugo (Virgin Islands) 109.2 -3.2 105.0
_______________________________
* Partial term (took office on March 4, 1992).
Differences Among Delegations
Table 8 lists a partial ranking of the state delegations in
the House and Senate, based on the average totals of their
members. In general, states dominated by urban populations with
well developed infrastructures of organized interests, tended to
have delegations with high average totals. The Hawaii and New
York delegations had among the highest average totals in both
chambers, owing to widespread endorsement of "single payer"
health care proposals. Only the Colorado delegation ranked among
the bottom five in both chambers. Most of the delegations with
low sponsorship totals were from western states. Finally, as we
can see from Table 7, had the territories been included in this
comparison, the District of Columbia would have had the highest
delegation average in the House. Table 8
State Delegations:
Highest and Lowest Average Totals, By Chamber
Billions of dollars
Rank State (No. in delegation) More Less Net
Highest Spending Increases - House:
1. Hawaii (2) 340.1 -1.0 339.0
2. Massachusetts (11) 210.3 -5.7 204.6
3. New York (34) 178.4 -4.1 174.3
4. West Virginia (4) 170.2 -7.0 163.1
5. Illinois (22) 159.5 -5.9 153.5
Lowest Spending Increases - House:
50. Colorado (6) 18.8 -19.5 -.7
49. Arizona (5) 16.0 -11.6 4.4
48. Wyoming (1) 13.8 -7.3 6.4
47. Kansas (5) 14.3 -7.6 6.7
46. Virginia (1) 25.6 -17.6 8.1
Highest Spending Increases - Senate:
1. Hawaii (2) 302.4 -15.7 286.7
2. Minnesota (2) 205.4 -2.0 203.4
3. Illinois (2) 200.7 -.8 199.8
4. New York (2) 160.4 -1.7 158.8
5. Pennsylvania (2) 156.2 -.9 156.1
Lowest Spending Increases - Senate:
50. Idaho (2) 17.5 -31.2 -13.7
47. Wisconsin (2) 14.8 -20.7 -5.9
49. Utah (2) 12.3 -15.8 -3.5
48. Colorado (2) 16.1 -15.1 1.0
46. Kentucky (2) 17.7 -15.6 2.1
Regional Differences
Table 9 displays the average totals for members from the
four regions of the U.S. It shows that the South overall is the
most fiscally conservative region of the U.S. Not
coincidentally, its members are the least likely to sponsor
"single payer" health reforms. Only 9 out of 162 Southern
senators and representatives (6 percent) had sponsored national
health care. They were far less inclined to sponsor such
legislation than their counterparts from the East (29 percent),
Midwest (23 percent), and West (20 percent).
Table 9
Propensity to Sponsor Spending Bills
Average CBTS Totals, by Region
Billions of dollars
More Less Net
House of Representatives
East (109) 131.9 -5.7 126.2
Midwest (86) 86.7 -6.1 80.7
West (108) 87.4 -11.7 75.6
South (136) 42.1 -6.5 35.6
Senate
Midwest (24) 87.2 -5.7 81.5
East (24) 64.4 -4.6 59.8
West (26) 48.9 -11.2 37.8
South (26) 23.8 -7.5 16.2
III. CONCLUSION
This survey does not take into account floor and committee
votes, nor the plethora of informal negotiations over process and
substance that play major roles in determining budgetary
outcomes. It measures legislative development and cosponsorship,
the most basic and measurable of the raw materials that make up
future budgets. As such, our data provide limited but valuable
insights into the legislative culture that has produced the large
and unrelenting deficit growth of the past two decades.
Our findings suggest that Congress' budgetary impotence
stems from institutional values that place a premium on conflict
avoidance. The resulting failure to systematically pit budgetary
priorities against one another undermines the very essence of
budgeting. The result is a rachet effect, where programs are
added far more often than eliminated. We found, moreover, that
the members who epitomized this value system were more likely to
return to the 103rd Congress than those who did not.
More positively, we detected evidence that the existence of
CBTS significantly modified sponsorship patterns among a quarter
of the Congress. Of course, it is unclear whether behavioral
changes among this receptive minority can modify the budgetary
behavior of Congress. Nor are we confident that we have measured
genuine efforts to reform. The great bulk of spending reductions
offered during the second session of the 102nd Congress (when
interim CBTS results were in the public domain) were either
across-the-board measures, or rescissions introduced by the
request of the President. This suggests that even members of
Congress who endorse the principle of budgetary balance are not
fully committed to the institutional conflict this would entail. APPENDIX A
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET TRACKING SYSTEM METHODOLOGY
In conducting the study, NTUF sought budget estimates for
legislation introduced in the 102nd Congress through the end of
the 102nd Congress that would have an annual impact on federal
spending of at least $10 million. During our research of
legislation thought to cost over $10 million, some bills actually
had estimates under $10 million. These bills are included in the
data base. This data was then cross-indexed with the sponsorship
records of each member of Congress to show the net changes in
federal spending proposed in the bills each member supported.
The study, which is available to the public on self-executing
data base software, includes detailed information on the bills
each member of Congress has sponsored or co-sponsored, and the
perspective cost or savings of each such bill. In cases where a
member sponsors the same spending in more than one bill, the same
spending is not counted twice toward the member's total. Each
member's tally reflects the extent to which he or she supports
more or less government spending, by virtue of the bills he or
she had sponsored.
To the extent that our data is incomplete, the effect is
likely to understate net pressures on spending and deficits.
When staff brought legislation to our attention, invariably it
was designed to cut spending.
Spending Estimates
The estimates used in this study reflect the best efforts of
NTUF to identify, and obtain budget estimates on all legislation
that would result in annual spending increases or reductions of
at least $10 million. To identify such legislation, NTUF senior
analysts reviewed the official titles of every bill introduced in
the 102nd Congress 1992. About a third of such bills were
selected for further research. Of these, slightly less than half
were found to have an annual fiscal impact of less than $10
million, while in about 40 percent of the cases, NTUF was able to
obtain estimates of spending impacts of at least $10 million per
year. In the remainder of cases, NTUF could not obtain estimates
for inclusion in this report. Before determining that estimates
were not obtainable, NTUF analysts reviewed the bill text for
authorization amounts and made at least two substantive contacts
with the primary sponsor's office.
In addition to bills whose spending estimates could not be
obtained NTUF excluded several classes of bills from the CBTS
data base:
1. Major, multiple-program authorization and appropriation
bills (including single-program bills specifying several
projects, such as the highway program reauthorization).
2. Resolutions, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions,
except those governing legislative budgets.
3. Procedural budget reforms.
4. Bills introduced by request of the President on which there
are no cosponsors.
5. Bills with an annual spending impact of less than $10
million for which spending estimates were not obtained in
the course of NTUF's research on larger bills (NTUF
estimates that only about 10 percent of small spending
legislation is represented in the study).
6. Bills having only tax or regulatory effects.
With very few exceptions, the estimates contained in this
study were obtained from sources outside of NTUF. Where there
was more than one estimate, NTUF used the most credible source.
Where NTUF obtained estimates from more than one equally credible
source, NTUF used the least optimistic (largest increase/smallest
reduction) estimate.
Annualized Estimates
Each bill listed in the report contains spending estimates
for budget years 1 through 5, the source of those estimates, and
an annualized cost. NTUF could not obtain a full set of
estimates for every bill. In some cases, only five-year totals
were available; while, in others, NTUF could obtain only a first-
year estimate. To compensate for this irregularity, NTUF
annualized the cost of each bill.
In general, where estimates for each of the next five fiscal
years were available, or where only a five-year total estimate
could be obtained, the annualized amount is the five-year
average. Where only estimates for less than five fiscal years
were available, the annualized amount is the average shown for
those years. In certain cases where multi-year estimates are
available, but where out-year spending estimates are lower than
the first year estimate, the annualized amount reflects either
the first year estimate, or an average of the years during which
spending is projected to grow. In addition, we adopted a
special rule for across the board spending cuts, assigning them
an annualized cost equal to their first-year savings.
Member Totals
By correlating the sponsorship and cosponsorship records of
each member of Congress with the CBTS data base, NTUF was able to
show the prospective net effect on federal spending of the bills
in the data base that each member had supported. In calculating
a member's total, NTUF attempted to ensure it did not overstate
the member's intentions to increase or decrease federal spending.
Where a member sponsored more than one bill with similar
purposes, NTUF only counted the most expensive version of the
bill toward the total. (In the reports for each member, bills
annotated with an asterisk have not been counted toward the
totals.)
Accuracy
The scope and nature of the CBTS cost survey makes total
precision impossible. To maximize precision and ensure fairness,
NTUF provided members of Congress with more than two weeks to
comment confidentially on the accuracy of their own reports. In
response to these comments, NTUF made numerous changes to the
CBTS data base. To the extent that more up-to-date information
comes to light, it will be reflected in subsequent reports.
However, the comprehensive nature of the data base makes it
unlikely that errors with respect to individual bills will alter
the general findings of this study.
Meanwhile, several factors combined to understate the
support for new spending attributed to each member. First, while
NTUF strove for completeness in constructing the CBTS data base,
estimates were unavailable for some of the bills investigated.
Second, most of the estimates in the data base were provided to
NTUF by the sponsors' offices. In comparing the initial
estimates of sponsors against those later provided by the
Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management and
Budget, NTUF found that sponsoring offices tend to underestimate
proposed spending. The cost of the most expensive bills in the
CBTS data base--national health care proposals--in some cases may
be under-estimated by more than $200 billion dollars per year.
Third, when it was brought to NTUF's attention through the
comment process that two or more bills a member had sponsored had
partially overlapping purposes, NTUF generally subtracted the
entire cost of the smaller bill from the member's total.
Limitations of Study
Some members of Congress have criticized CBTS because it
does not count the social "benefits" or economy-wide "savings"
thought to be conferred by certain spending proposals. CBTS
employs rules essentially similar to those of the Congressional
Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. The
reason budgetary agencies do not undertake such analysis (except
in special studies) is that the estimation of benefits is
inherently qualitative. Were CBTS to attempt to account for such
benefits it would depart from time-tested budgetary principles
and become immersed in a thicket of controversy.
Examples of legislation entailing large budget outlays which
are claimed to be "self-financing" include: eliminating, or
reducing the so-called earnings test under Social Security ($1.7
to $5.3 billion); infrastructure programs ($1 million to $40
billion); and national health care ($65 billion to $503 billion).
Such claims invariably do not consider that the act of raising
the revenues or federal debt to pay for new spending will reduce
economic growth, directly offsetting the economic gains claimed.
NTUF would need such information before providing estimates of
the benefits of legislation. In addition, claims that certain
health entitlements will result in less private and/or public
sector spending for the same goods or services depend on
assumptions about government efficiency or the ability of
Congress to apply top-down budgeting that NTUF finds
questionable. While NTUF does comment these claims, the paucity
and unreliability of data on the social or economy-wide costs and
benefits of legislation obliges NTUF to limit this survey to
estimates of direct spending impacts.
At the level of the individual senator or representative,
our findings may not be conclusive. Some members of Congress
further their legislative objectives through means other than
sponsorships--such as orchestrating floor or committee action.
Thus, for example, some senior members of Congress who generally
are perceived as likely to support new spending appear otherwise
in this report.
In addition, some members claim to have introduced or
cosponsored bills merely to "start a discussion." Others may
have relatively high sponsorship totals, but an analysis of floor
votes would support their claims to be promoters of fiscal
restraint (and vise versa). Finally, some members who say they
are working to reduce spending have concentrated their
legislative efforts on procedural changes or tactics other than
sponsoring spending cut bills.
Even among members who support substantial new spending,
some argue that budgetary savings their bills engender elsewhere
in the budget and/or the private sector would make their
legislative agendas "self-financing." Nevertheless, most self-
described supporters of government activism tend to have high
CBTS sponsorship totals, while most self-described opponents of
government activism tend to have lower totals.
Finally, NTUF has not counted floor votes (to cut or
increase spending) toward individual member totals. It is of
course likely that in some cases the incorporation of votes in
the study would significantly change some of the totals.
Information on sponsorship provides useful, if qualified,
insights into the congressional budget process.
APPENDIX B
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER REPORTS
Despite much congressional rhetoric about the need to reduce
the deficit, most members of Congress routinely sponsor
legislation which, if enacted, would result in more spending
increases than spending cuts. In the current report only 49
members of Congress had sponsored bills that, on balance, would
have the effect of cutting federal spending. Just one member
proposed cuts that would have shaved the deficit by more than 20
percent.
Appendix B shows for the House and Senate, respectively, the
total spending increases and spending cuts sponsored by each
member of that chamber, as well as a total of these two amounts.
A sorting of this data by totals, with corresponding rankings, is
available upon request.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET TRACKING SYSTEM
HOUSE MEMBER REPORT SORTED ALPHABETICALLY
(All Amounts are in Millions of Dollars)
National Taxpayers Union Foundation Bills for the 102nd Congress
404 Eighth Street N.E., Washington D.C. 20002, (202) 543-1303
December 30, 1992
NOTICE: This report lists the total costs of bills a member has
sponsored and is based upon public information. This report
should not be construed as reflecting upon a member's fitness to
serve.
Name Increases Decreases Total
ABERCROMBIE (D-HI) 331,191 -1,684 329,507
ACKERMAN (D-NY) 352,249 -1,368 350,881
ALEXANDER (D-AR) 24,903 -72 24,831
ALLARD (R-CO) 7,352 -11,761 -4,409
ALLEN (R-VA) 7,003 -44,825 -37,822
ANDERSON (D-CA) 29,312 -952 28,360
ANDREWS M. (D-TX) 30,894 -22 30,872
ANDREWS R. (D-NJ) 55,412 -6,305 49,107
ANDREWS T. (D-ME) 268,754 -8,326 260,428
ANNUNZIO (D-IL) 280,047 -152 279,895
ANTHONY (D-AR) 8,556 -100 8,456
APPLEGATE (D-OH) 23,163 -932 22,231
ARCHER (R-TX) 5,936 -7,404 -1,468
ARMEY (R-TX) 11,080 -18,604 -7,524
ASPIN (D-WI) 8,774 -34 8,740
ATKINS (D-MA) 292,710 -31,819 260,891
AUCOIN (D-OR) 52,284 -4,485 47,799
BACCHUS (D-FL) 34,092 -5,607 28,485
BAKER (R-LA) 22,672 -10,561 12,111
BALLENGER (R-NC) 16,874 -11,825 5,049
BARNARD (D-GA) 33,434 -2,355 31,079
BARRETT (R-NE) 21,787 -1,212 20,575
BARTON (R-TX) 7,854 -3,500 4,354
BATEMAN (R-VA) 4,130 -42,502 -38,372
BEILENSON (D-CA) 268,827 -27,504 241,323
BENNETT (D-FL) 46,299 -22,367 23,932
BENTLEY (R-MD) 20,927 -1,625 19,302
BEREUTER (R-NE) 16,425 -3,174 13,251
BERMAN (D-CA) 307,138 -7,855 299,283
BEVILL (D-AL) 50,774 -1,209 49,565
BILBRAY (D-NV) 21,046 -157 20,889
BILIRAKIS (R-FL) 23,618 -2,078 21,540
BLACKWELL (D-PA) 309,975 -146 309,829
BLAZ (R-GU) 71,306 -2,140 69,166
BLILEY (R-VA) 10,551 -2,321 8,230
BOEHLERT (R-NY) 25,943 -426 25,517
BOEHNER (R-OH) 16,379 -13,137 3,242
BONIOR (D-MI) 166,898 -5,423 161,475
BORSKI (D-PA) 305,649 -515 305,134
BOUCHER (D-VA) 41,702 -1,816 39,886
BOXER (D-CA) 337,899 -3,648 334,251
BREWSTER (D-OK) 19,817 -1,208 18,609
BROOKS (D-TX) 20,533 -6 20,527
BROOMFIELD (R-MI) 14,493 -6,158 8,335
BROWDER (D-AL) 10,260 -4 10,256
BROWN G. (D-CA) 308,995 -8,601 300,394
BRUCE (D-IL) 15,115 -191 14,924
BRYANT (D-TX) 33,205 -741 32,464
BUNNING (R-KY) 9,924 -1,907 8,017
BURTON D. (R-IN) 13,397 -9,675 3,722
BUSTAMANTE (D-TX) 360,857 -3,254 357,603
BYRON (D-MD) 19,752 -76 19,676
CALLAHAN (R-AL) 15,324 -79 15,245
CAMP D. (R-MI) 18,231 -5,058 13,173
CAMPBELL B. (D-CO) 23,087 -1,969 21,118
CAMPBELL T. (R-CA) 19,093 -114,343 -95,250
CARDIN (D-MD) 11,557 -885 10,672
CARPER (D-DE) 25,906 -544 25,362
CARR (D-MI) 28,654 -79 28,575
CHANDLER (R-WA) 7,815 -7,591 224
CHAPMAN (D-TX) 31,517 -8,008 23,509
CLAY (D-MO) 348,903 -4,429 344,474
CLEMENT (D-TN) 47,238 -699 46,539
CLINGER (R-PA) 46,744 -2,523 44,221
COBLE (R-NC) 10,620 -1,625 8,995
COLEMAN E. (R-MO) 21,010 -320 20,690
COLEMAN R. (D-TX) 42,780 -90 42,690
COLLINS B. R. (D-MI) 366,001 -888 365,113
COLLINS C. (D-IL) 328,411 -1,074 327,337
COLORADO (D-PR) 5,546 0 5,546
COMBEST (R-TX) 15,852 -9,164 6,688
CONDIT (D-CA) 18,926 -8,697 10,229
CONYERS (D-MI) 354,340 -375 353,965
COOPER (D-TN) 22,441 -27,001 -4,560
COSTELLO (D-IL) 52,766 -921 51,845
COUGHLIN (R-PA) 11,720 -938 10,782
COX C. (R-CA) 14,643 -58,118 -43,475
COX J. (D-IL) 34,849 -853 33,996
COYNE (D-PA) 285,751 -937 284,814
CRAMER (D-AL) 17,566 -76 17,490
CRANE (R-IL) 6,058 -15,644 -9,586
CUNNINGHAM (R-CA) 30,750 -8,773 21,977
DANNEMEYER (R-CA) 7,665 -17,276 -9,611
DARDEN (D-GA) 14,463 -778 13,685
DAVIS R. (R-MI) 27,960 -2,709 25,251
DELAGARZA (D-TX) 31,820 -68 31,752
DELUGO (D-VI) 109,169 -3,230 105,939
DEFAZIO (D-OR) 60,538 -794 59,744
DELAURO (D-CT) 47,192 -1,581 45,611
DELAY (R-TX) 13,251 -9,368 3,883
DELLUMS (D-CA) 365,778 -7,257 358,521
DERRICK (D-SC) 14,557 -1,089 13,468
DICKINSON (R-AL) 14,667 -3,427 11,240
DICKS (D-WA) 273,048 -327 272,721
DINGELL (D-MI) 84,786 -1,589 83,197
DIXON J. (D-CA) 48,982 -826 48,156
DONNELLY (D-MA) 14,832 -3,606 11,226
DOOLEY (D-CA) 56,113 -27,332 28,781
DOOLITTLE (R-CA) 15,415 -32,405 -16,990
DORGAN B. (D-ND) 19,821 -740 19,081
DORNAN R. (R-CA) 15,125 -11,289 3,836
DOWNEY (D-NY) 319,127 -928 318,199
DREIER (R-CA) 18,682 -7,177 11,505
DUNCAN (R-TN) 20,236 -5,812 14,424
DURBIN (D-IL) 12,969 -2,057 10,912
DWYER (D-NJ) 291,175 -4,604 286,571
DYMALLY (D-CA) 370,827 -60 370,767
EARLY (D-MA) 5,320 -800 4,520
ECKART (D-OH) 35,241 -1,488 33,753
EDWARDS C. (D-TX) 7,722 -6 7,716
EDWARDS D. (D-CA) 295,577 -27,031 268,546
EDWARDS M. (R-OK) 13,431 -2,187 11,244
EMERSON (R-MO) 66,473 -4,330 62,143
ENGEL (D-NY) 313,444 -6,205 307,239
ENGLISH (D-OK) 260,580 -1,145 259,435
ERDREICH (D-AL) 17,279 -1,212 16,067
ESPY (D-MS) 39,516 -27,118 12,398
EVANS (D-IL) 348,717 -7,605 341,112
EWING (R-IL) 11,231 -6,992 4,239
FALEOMAVAEGA (D-AS) 298,021 -1,480 296,541
FASCELL (D-FL) 37,620 -149 37,471
FAWELL (R-IL) 10,589 -27,472 -16,883
FAZIO (D-CA) 59,067 -1,979 57,088
FEIGHAN (D-OH) 287,609 -1,382 286,227
FIELDS (R-TX) 11,608 -9,449 2,159
FISH (R-NY) 40,131 -7,440 32,691
FLAKE (D-NY) 342,046 -184 341,862
FOGLIETTA (D-PA) 326,279 -410 325,869
FORD H. (D-TN) 344,254 -177 344,077
FORD W. (D-MI) 55,422 -2,095 53,327
FRANK B. (D-MA) 366,092 -9,885 356,207
FRANKS G. (R-CT) 17,250 -2,085 15,165
FROST (D-TX) 86,114 -2,133 83,981
GALLEGLY (R-CA) 20,393 -14,657 5,736
GALLO (R-NJ) 17,005 -3,385 13,620
GAYDOS (D-PA) 50,491 -159 50,332
GEJDENSON (D-CT) 277,395 -1,650 275,745
GEKAS (R-PA) 7,905 -2,870 5,035
GEPHARDT (D-MO) 80,535 -2 80,533
GEREN (D-TX) 34,356 -21,587 12,769
GIBBONS (D-FL) 215,452 -14 215,438
GILCHREST (R-MD) 22,695 -7,333 15,362
GILLMOR (R-OH) 17,934 -1,638 16,296
GILMAN (R-NY) 34,148 -5,245 28,903
GINGRICH (R-GA) 13,132 -7,985 5,147
GLICKMAN (D-KS) 36,623 -321 36,302
GONZALEZ (D-TX) 60,191 -123 60,068
GOODLING (R-PA) 54,881 -3,720 51,161
GORDON (D-TN) 15,263 -6,999 8,264
GOSS (R-FL) 23,778 -46,042 -22,264
GRADISON (R-OH) 1,230 -5 1,225
GRANDY (R-IA) 13,953 -914 13,039
GREEN (R-NY) 21,782 -1,004 20,778
GUARINI (D-NJ) 44,923 -27,515 17,408
GUNDERSON (R-WI) 24,525 -8,764 15,761
HALL R. (D-TX) 39,659 -2,149 37,510
HALL T. (D-OH) 30,731 -1,226 29,505
HAMILTON (D-IN) 7,424 -312 7,112
HAMMERSCHMIDT (R-AR) 37,337 -2,481 34,856
HANCOCK (R-MO) 11,624 -20,092 -8,468
HANSEN (R-UT) 19,551 -2,112 17,439
HARRIS (D-AL) 10,265 -158 10,107
HASTERT (R-IL) 10,791 -24,203 -13,412
HATCHER (D-GA) 21,152 -26 21,126
HAYES C. (D-IL) 392,237 -615 391,622
HAYES J. (D-LA) 38,692 -978 37,714
HEFLEY (R-CO) 10,603 -10,067 536
HEFNER (D-NC) 27,382 -1,618 25,764
HENRY (R-MI) 21,215 -1,942 19,273
HERGER (R-CA) 20,609 -8,412 12,197
HERTEL (D-MI) 47,491 -1,841 45,650
HOAGLAND (D-NE) 20,322 -2,076 18,246
HOBSON (R-OH) 14,084 -8,118 5,966
HOCHBRUECKNER (D-NY) 299,181 -4,491 294,690
HOLLOWAY (R-LA) 22,340 -6,402 15,938
HOPKINS (R-KY) 6,474 -2 6,472
HORN (D-MO) 12,042 -905 11,137
HORTON (R-NY) 39,727 -1,386 38,341
HOUGHTON (R-NY) 11,812 -897 10,915
HOYER (D-MD) 9,927 -167 9,760
HUBBARD (D-KY) 46,137 -830 45,307
HUCKABY (D-LA) 25,049 -2,358 22,691
HUGHES (D-NJ) 63,138 -30,471 32,667
HUNTER (R-CA) 19,164 -10,305 8,859
HUTTO (D-FL) 19,988 -1,491 18,497
HYDE (R-IL) 23,904 -8,751 15,153
INHOFE (R-OK) 31,766 -42,882 -11,116
IRELAND (R-FL) 12,519 -11,964 555
JACOBS (D-IN) 12,733 -1,223 11,510
JAMES (R-FL) 20,455 -10,153 10,302
JEFFERSON (D-LA) 155,777 -5,154 150,623
JENKINS (D-GA) 14,626 -615 14,011
JOHNSON N. (R-CT) 16,448 -2,819 13,629
JOHNSON S. (R-TX) 6,164 -7,062 -898
JOHNSON T. (D-SD) 49,197 -24,430 24,767
JOHNSTON (D-FL) 256,337 -27,846 228,491
JONES B. (D-GA) 37,271 -253 37,018
JONES W. (D-NC) 49,590 -785 48,805
JONTZ (D-IN) 43,659 -38,509 5,150
KANJORSKI (D-PA) 41,942 -962 40,980
KAPTUR (D-OH) 83,714 -27,541 56,173
KASICH (R-OH) 8,731 -2,621 6,110
KENNEDY (D-MA) 328,737 -1,012 327,725
KENNELLY (D-CT) 54,394 -471 53,923
KILDEE (D-MI) 185,281 -1,997 183,284
KLECZKA (D-WI) 304,045 -73 303,972
KLUG (R-WI) 46,740 -30,671 16,069
KOLBE (R-AZ) 9,331 -1,669 7,662
KOLTER (D-PA) 70,770 -28,756 42,014
KOPETSKI (D-OR) 60,816 -28,955 31,861
KOSTMAYER (D-PA) 63,793 -8,336 55,457
KYL (R-AZ) 12,928 -16,466 -3,538
LAFALCE (D-NY) 299,557 -29,018 270,539
LAGOMARSINO (R-CA) 23,516 -13,790 9,726
LANCASTER (D-NC) 51,493 -4,587 46,906
LANTOS (D-CA) 35,383 -936 34,447
LAROCCO (D-ID) 3,814 -510 3,304
LAUGHLIN (D-TX) 25,338 -2,365 22,973
LEACH (R-IA) 17,060 -1,605 15,455
LEHMAN R. (D-CA) 26,628 -877 25,751
LEHMAN W. (D-FL) 208,477 -130 208,347
LENT (R-NY) 20,709 -8,493 12,216
LEVIN S. (D-MI) 28,452 -809 27,643
LEVINE M. (D-CA) 47,967 -78 47,889
LEWIS JERRY (R-CA) 9,912 -1,027 8,885
LEWIS JOHN (D-GA) 289,856 -463 289,393
LEWIS T. (R-FL) 16,924 -4,821 12,103
LIGHTFOOT (R-IA) 14,218 -2,430 11,788
LIPINSKI (D-IL) 335,251 -1,676 333,575
LIVINGSTON (R-LA) 22,938 -8,229 14,709
LLOYD (D-TN) 42,214 -2,186 40,028
LONG (D-IN) 7,062 -720 6,342
LOWERY (R-CA) 20,436 -1,989 18,447
LOWEY (D-NY) 57,952 -2,785 55,167
LUKEN (D-OH) 7,193 -4,187 3,006
MACHTLEY (R-RI) 34,653 -6,231 28,422
MANTON (D-NY) 282,893 -821 282,072
MARKEY (D-MA) 326,361 -562 325,799
MARLENEE (R-MT) 24,449 -2,075 22,374
MARTIN D. (R-NY) 11,965 -2,157 9,808
MARTINEZ (D-CA) 381,983 -6,138 375,845
MATSUI (D-CA) 56,986 -1,548 55,438
MAVROULES (D-MA) 277,319 -5,235 272,084
MAZZOLI (D-KY) 41,410 -27,091 14,319
MCCANDLESS (R-CA) 15,342 -8,416 6,926
MCCLOSKEY (D-IN) 40,433 -1,571 38,862
MCCOLLUM (R-FL) 19,163 -1,600 17,563
MCCRERY (R-LA) 18,244 -893 17,351
MCCURDY (D-OK) 25,328 -307 25,021
MCDADE (R-PA) 12,643 -892 11,751
MCDERMOTT (D-WA) 299,636 -4,869 294,767
MCEWEN (R-OH) 104,958 -9,260 95,698
MCGRATH (R-NY) 23,159 -464 22,695
MCHUGH (D-NY) 14,701 -4,381 10,320
MCMILLAN A. (R-NC) 9,464 -8,226 1,238
MCMILLEN T. (D-MD) 40,120 -107 40,013
MCNULTY (D-NY) 313,499 -2,430 311,069
MEYERS (R-KS) 11,711 -6,205 5,506
MFUME (D-MD) 350,844 -465 350,379
MICHEL (R-IL) 7,089 -820 6,269
MILLER C. (R-OH) 14,163 -8,240 5,923
MILLER G. (D-CA) 313,544 -24,266 289,278
MILLER J. (R-WA) 17,411 -7,880 9,531
MINETA (D-CA) 54,069 -27,464 26,605
MINK (D-HI) 348,958 -407 348,551
MOAKLEY (D-MA) 16,758 -78 16,680
MOLINARI S. (R-NY) 30,221 -1,555 28,666
MOLLOHAN (D-WV) 35,286 -326 34,960
MONTGOMERY (D-MS) 33,758 -2,428 31,330
MOODY (D-WI) 290,054 -1,911 288,143
MOORHEAD (R-CA) 15,464 -9,398 6,066
MORAN (D-VA) 31,432 -27,088 4,344
MORELLA (R-MD) 29,650 -4,458 25,192
MORRISON S. (R-WA) 40,559 -4,975 35,584
MRAZEK (D-NY) 36,159 -4,415 31,744
MURPHY (D-PA) 42,442 -1,448 40,994
MURTHA (D-PA) 73,534 -303 73,231
MYERS (R-IN) 10,162 -1,268 8,894
NAGLE (D-IA) 52,978 -27,634 25,344
NATCHER (D-KY) 10,986 -75 10,911
NEAL R. (D-MA) 60,727 -4,875 55,852
NEAL S. (D-NC) 28,248 -1,533 26,715
NICHOLS (R-KS) 6,981 -1,479 5,502
NORTON (D-DC) 413,546 -1,519 412,027
NOWAK (D-NY) 284,715 -884 283,831
NUSSLE (R-IA) 11,209 -8,462 2,747
OAKAR (D-OH) 160,256 -379 159,877
OBERSTAR (D-MN) 327,770 -29,093 298,677
OBEY (D-WI) 9,268 -332 8,936
OLIN (D-VA) 75,520 -27,988 47,532
OLVER (D-MA) 315,462 -1,500 313,962
ORTIZ (D-TX) 8,147 -824 7,323
ORTON (D-UT) 16,083 -6,238 9,845
OWENS M. (D-NY) 386,049 -5,045 381,004
OWENS W. (D-UT) 30,998 -5,594 25,404
OXLEY (R-OH) 10,982 -18,376 -7,394
PACKARD (R-CA) 11,808 -59,491 -47,683
PALLONE (D-NJ) 278,365 -24,742 253,623
PANETTA (D-CA) 13,552 -27,015 -13,463
PARKER (D-MS) 20,889 -1,304 19,585
PASTOR (D-AZ) 29,092 -92 29,000
PATTERSON (D-SC) 18,343 -1,836 16,507
PAXON (R-NY) 15,343 -2,532 12,811
PAYNE D. (D-NJ) 332,317 -42 332,275
PAYNE L. (D-VA) 37,619 -27,929 9,690
PEASE (D-OH) 40,357 -27,690 12,667
PELOSI (D-CA) 335,963 -28,020 307,943
PENNY (D-MN) 35,788 -34,404 1,384
PERKINS (D-KY) 79,539 -2,428 77,111
PETERSON C. (D-MN) 46,113 -1,945 44,168
PETERSON P. (D-FL) 65,882 -2,853 63,029
PETRI (R-WI) 25,223 -10,285 14,938
PICKETT (D-VA) 13,891 -979 12,912
PICKLE (D-TX) 13,286 -26 13,260
PORTER (R-IL) 29,155 -8,829 20,326
POSHARD (D-IL) 317,702 -497 317,205
PRICE D. (D-NC) 7,404 -90 7,314
PURSELL (R-MI) 8,176 -384 7,792
QUILLEN (R-TN) 50,967 -908 50,059
RAHALL (D-WV) 184,472 -248 184,224
RAMSTAD (R-MN) 18,238 -8,806 9,432
RANGEL (D-NY) 402,255 -4,435 397,820
RAVENEL (R-SC) 31,170 -23,087 8,083
RAY (D-GA) 30,843 -3,815 27,028
REED (D-RI) 62,998 -2,764 60,234
REGULA (R-OH) 19,937 -253 19,684
RHODES (R-AZ) 9,428 -9,700 -272
RICHARDSON (D-NM) 54,509 -4,876 49,633
RIDGE (R-PA) 7,269 -84 7,185
RIGGS (R-CA) 19,649 -16,706 2,943
RINALDO (R-NJ) 33,652 -21 33,631
RITTER (R-PA) 16,945 -7,847 9,098
ROBERTS (R-KS) 7,711 -2,343 5,368
ROE R. (D-NJ) 91,207 -2,065 89,142
ROEMER T. (D-IN) 29,404 -317 29,087
ROGERS (R-KY) 23,884 -1,730 22,154
ROHRABACHER (R-CA) 6,969 -16,931 -9,962
ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL) 28,735 -2,098 26,637
ROSE (D-NC) 36,130 -144 35,986
ROSTENKOWSKI (D-IL) 49,207 -16 49,191
ROTH (R-WI) 12,846 -3,124 9,722
ROUKEMA (R-NJ) 13,295 -882 12,413
ROWLAND J. R. (D-GA) 10,640 -17 10,623
ROYBAL (D-CA) 64,918 -815 64,103
RUSSO (D-IL) 264,252 -21,534 242,718
SABO (D-MN) 275,831 -4,451 271,380
SANDERS (I-VT) 68,016 -1,335 66,681
SANGMEISTER (D-IL) 312,051 -98 311,953
SANTORUM (R-PA) 15,898 -37,928 -22,030
SARPALIUS (D-TX) 20,527 -616 19,911
SAVAGE (D-IL) 349,966 -25 349,941
SAWYER (D-OH) 297,663 -178 297,485
SAXTON (R-NJ) 16,472 -79 16,393
SCHAEFER (R-CO) 18,409 -38,894 -20,485
SCHEUER (D-NY) 307,107 -633 306,474
SCHIFF (R-NM) 35,640 -2,246 33,394
SCHROEDER (D-CO) 46,642 -27,163 19,479
SCHULZE (R-PA) 6,424 -94 6,330
SCHUMER (D-NY) 271,578 -80 271,498
SENSENBRENNER (R-WI) 17,518 -11,749 5,769
SERRANO (D-NY) 337,429 -931 336,498
SHARP (D-IN) 6,467 -802 5,665
SHAW (R-FL) 20,827 -2,065 18,762
SHAYS (R-CT) 45,429 -7,532 37,897
SHUSTER (R-PA) 13,857 -41 13,816
SIKORSKI (D-MN) 284,390 -588 283,802
SISISKY (D-VA) 20,617 -80 20,537
SKAGGS (D-CO) 6,617 -27,014 -20,397
SKEEN (R-NM) 16,323 -2,188 14,135
SKELTON (D-MO) 9,162 -305 8,857
SLATTERY (D-KS) 8,427 -27,472 -19,045
SLAUGHTER L. (D-NY) 27,363 -5,343 22,020
SMITH C. (R-NJ) 69,873 -24 69,849
SMITH LAMAR (R-TX) 9,036 -8,386 650
SMITH LARRY (D-FL) 48,122 -353 47,769
SMITH N. (D-IA) 22,666 -134 22,532
SMITH R. F. (R-OR) 18,308 -7,690 10,618
SNOWE (R-ME) 16,863 -3,028 13,835
SOLARZ (D-NY) 292,065 -4,332 287,733
SOLOMON (R-NY) 71,804 -11,075 60,729
SPENCE (R-SC) 19,058 -6,314 12,744
SPRATT (D-SC) 27,960 -27,474 486
STAGGERS (D-WV) 178,473 -140 178,333
STALLINGS (D-ID) 22,744 -425 22,319
STARK (D-CA) 304,200 -2,738 301,462
STEARNS (R-FL) 23,685 -26,501 -2,816
STENHOLM (D-TX) 27,317 -34,249 -6,932
STOKES (D-OH) 172,988 -103 172,885
STUDDS (D-MA) 308,641 -2,828 305,813
STUMP (R-AZ) 19,018 -29,822 -10,804
SUNDQUIST (R-TN) 15,057 -5,357 9,700
SWETT (D-NH) 43,299 -2,138 41,161
SWIFT (D-WA) 281,690 -27,315 254,375
SYNAR (D-OK) 23,545 -6,833 16,712
TALLON (D-SC) 218,202 -90 218,112
TANNER (D-TN) 8,563 -1,249 7,314
TAUZIN (D-LA) 26,347 -8,410 17,937
TAYLOR C. (R-NC) 18,295 -3,050 15,245
TAYLOR G. (D-MS) 39,850 -538 39,312
THOMAS C. (R-WY) 13,754 -7,325 6,429
THOMAS R. (D-GA) 11,811 -327 11,484
THOMAS W. (R-CA) 2,115 -6,877 -4,762
THORNTON (D-AR) 14,635 -6 14,629
TORRES (D-CA) 181,111 -511 180,600
TORRICELLI (D-NJ) 26,195 -243 25,952
TOWNS (D-NY) 389,860 -8,092 381,768
TRAFICANT (D-OH) 167,359 -1,490 165,869
TRAXLER (D-MI) 53,163 -513 52,650
UNSOELD (D-WA) 88,784 -27,816 60,968
UPTON (R-MI) 17,892 -513 17,379
VALENTINE (D-NC) 22,311 -1,643 20,668
VANDERJAGT (R-MI) 19,347 -2,303 17,044
VENTO (D-MN) 283,153 -2,403 280,750
VISCLOSKY (D-IN) 8,628 -27,010 -18,382
VOLKMER (D-MO) 18,890 -493 18,397
VUCANOVICH (R-NV) 23,955 -2,458 21,497
WALKER (R-PA) 10,307 -11,217 -910
WALSH (R-NY) 34,719 -4,215 30,504
WASHINGTON (D-TX) 47,877 -7,239 40,638
WATERS (D-CA) 30,373 -488 29,885
WAXMAN (D-CA) 92,216 -128 92,088
WEBER (R-MN) 18,985 -1,544 17,441
WEISS (D-NY) 356,463 -5,635 350,828
WELDON (R-PA) 23,810 -40,073 -16,263
WHEAT (D-MO) 57,860 -1,676 56,184
WHITTEN (D-MS) 49,491 -8,281 41,210
WILLIAMS (D-MT) 50,543 -274 50,269
WILSON (D-TX) 51,110 -28,307 22,803
WISE (D-WV) 282,428 -27,388 255,040
WOLF (R-VA) 13,679 -22 13,657
WOLPE (D-MI) 49,107 -4,172 44,935
WYDEN (D-OR) 40,024 -1,024 39,000
WYLIE (R-OH) 14,797 -65 14,732
YATES (D-IL) 316,698 -1,525 315,173
YATRON (D-PA) 23,838 -84 23,754
YOUNG C. (R-FL) 23,246 -2,002 21,244
YOUNG D. (R-AK) 17,990 -903 17,087
ZELIFF (R-NH) 17,329 -41,790 -24,461
ZIMMER (R-NJ) 13,736 -43,022 -29,286
Note: Rep. Foley, as Speaker of the House, does not sponsor or
cosponsor legislation. Report also includes the 5 delegates to
the House of
Representatives.
CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET TRACKING SYSTEM
SENATE MEMBER REPORT
SORTED ALPHABETICALLY
(All Amounts are in
Millions of Dollars)
Name Increases Decreases Total
ADAMS (D-WA) 71,997 -14,624 57,373
AKAKA (D-HI) 59,502 -16,727 42,775
BAUCUS (D-MT) 28,834 -14,501 14,333
BENTSEN (D-TX) 27,129 -14,551 12,578
BIDEN (D-DE) 29,251 -1 29,250
BINGAMAN (D-NM) 26,301 -125 26,176
BOND (R-MO) 7,647 -74 7,573
BOREN (D-OK) 49,654 -14,502 35,152
BRADLEY (D-NJ) 29,008 -23,252 5,756
BREAUX (D-LA) 38,486 -14,551 23,935
BROWN H. (R-CO) 7,808 -35,267 -27,459
BRYAN (D-NV) 27,733 -1 27,732
BUMPERS (D-AR) 16,851 -9,414 7,437
BURDICK (D-ND) 76,615 -14,681 61,934
BURNS (R-MT) 49,749 -16,700 33,049
BYRD (D-WV) 7,625 0 7,625
CHAFEE (R-RI) 44,841 -91 44,750
COATS (R-IN) 13,936 -20,288 -6,352
COCHRAN (R-MS) 12,715 -75 12,640
COHEN (R-ME) 9,801 -443 9,358
CONRAD (D-ND) 18,407 -82 18,325
CRAIG (R-ID) 14,841 -31,200 -16,359
CRANSTON (D-CA) 67,330 -88 67,242
D'AMATO (R-NY) 30,844 -6,768 24,076
DANFORTH (R-MO) 26,690 -74 26,616
DASCHLE (D-SD) 290,819 -14,550 276,269
DECONCINI (D-AZ) 48,509 -15,102 33,407
DIXON A. (D-IL) 40,823 -143 40,680
DODD (D-CT) 42,069 -14,993 27,076
DOLE (R-KS) 28,167 -2 28,165
DOMENICI (R-NM) 8,172 -3,631 4,541
DURENBERGER (R-MN) 26,372 -3,954 22,418
EXON (D-NE) 10,855 -2,365 8,490
FORD (D-KY) 17,998 -14,502 3,496
FOWLER (D-GA) 22,207 -4,681 17,526
GARN (R-UT) 3,004 -401 2,603
GLENN (D-OH) 23,174 -377 22,797
GORE (D-TN) 17,997 -52 17,945
GORTON (R-WA) 28,845 -124 28,721
GRAHAM (D-FL) 50,512 -115 50,397
GRAMM (R-TX) 10,385 -14,588 -4,203
GRASSLEY (R-IA) 24,569 -20,454 4,115
HARKIN (D-IA) 33,849 -74 33,775
HATCH (R-UT) 21,727 -31,218 -9,491
HATFIELD (R-OR) 20,321 -402 19,919
HEFLIN (D-AL) 22,317 -12 22,305
HELMS (R-NC) 8,088 -16,700 -8,612
HOLLINGS (D-SC) 24,065 -81 23,984
INOUYE (D-HI) 545,292 -14,551 530,741
JEFFORDS (R-VT) 261,452 -51 261,401
JOHNSTON (D-LA) 34,627 -15,356 19,271
KASSEBAUM (R-KS) 24,635 -147 24,488
KASTEN (R-WI) 21,865 -31,200 -9,335
KENNEDY (D-MA) 72,867 -119 72,748
KERREY R. (D-NE) 247,128 0 247,128
KERRY J. (D-MA) 37,005 -50 36,955
KOHL (D-WI) 7,702 -10,141 -2,439
LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) 34,829 -711 34,118
LEAHY (D-VT) 44,748 -158 44,590
LEVIN (D-MI) 15,548 -795 14,753
LIEBERMAN (D-CT) 42,038 -14,871 27,167
LOTT (R-MS) 27,324 -17,648 9,676
LUGAR (R-IN) 14,335 -3,774 10,561
MACK (R-FL) 17,917 -3,588 14,329
MCCAIN (R-AZ) 31,594 -36,255 -4,661
MCCONNELL (R-KY) 17,468 -16,700 768
METZENBAUM (D-OH) 284,197 -51 284,146
MIKULSKI (D-MD) 33,453 -14,926 18,527
MITCHELL (D-ME) 27,450 -41 27,409
MOYNIHAN (D-NY) 290,202 -68 290,134
MURKOWSKI (R-AK) 9,284 -3,661 5,623
NICKLES (R-OK) 10,884 -16,700 -5,816
NUNN (D-GA) 4,922 -402 4,520
PACKWOOD (R-OR) 50,614 -50 50,564
PELL (D-RI) 40,482 -120 40,362
PRESSLER (R-SD) 22,341 -729 21,612
PRYOR (D-AR) 19,443 -14,966 4,477
REID (D-NV) 37,572 -1 37,571
RIEGLE (D-MI) 88,645 -14,550 74,095
ROBB (D-VA) 12,244 -2 12,242
ROCKEFELLER (D-WV) 55,441 -2 55,439
ROTH (R-DE) 9,752 -17,118 -7,366
RUDMAN (R-NH) 23,059 -3,501 19,558
SANFORD (D-NC) 32,006 -132 31,874
SARBANES (D-MD) 54,611 -370 54,241
SASSER (D-TN) 39,320 -548 38,772
SEYMOUR (R-CA) 28,775 -16,700 12,075
SHELBY (D-AL) 39,678 -1,804 37,874
SIMON (D-IL) 360,450 -1,530 358,920
SIMPSON (R-WY) 20,537 -3,934 16,603
SMITH R. C. (R-NH) 14,451 -20,291 -5,840
SPECTER (R-PA) 37,725 -37 37,688
STEVENS (R-AK) 28,663 -15,169 13,494
SYMMS (R-ID) 20,212 -31,217 -11,005
THURMOND (R-SC) 18,546 -3,989 14,557
WALLOP (R-WY) 9,005 -433 8,572
WARNER (R-VA) 30,226 -622 29,604
WELLSTONE (D-MN) 384,340 -1 384,339
WIRTH (D-CO) 24,440 -50 24,390
WOFFORD (D-PA) 274,870 -151 274,719
