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