[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11881-H11905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Joint Resolution 257, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 257

       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall without intervention of any point 
     of order consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 115) making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except (1) one hour of debate on the joint 
     resolution, which shall be equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit, which may 
     include instructions only if offered by the minority leader 
     or his designee.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Woodland 
Hills, CA, Mr. Beilenson, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of 
House 

[[Page H 11882]]
Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution making appropriations for 
fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995.
  This modified closed rule provides for consideration of the joint 
resolution in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary 
notwithstanding, with 1 hour of general debate divided equally between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The motion to recommit may include instructions only if 
offered by the minority leader or his designee.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we do not need a poll or a focus group 
to know what the American people want from the Federal Government. As 
General Powell said just a few minutes ago, the American people want a 
government that lives within its means. Instead, just talk to people in 
any shopping mall or grocery store. They want the Government to balance 
the books and to stop burdening their children with debt.
  Only the most out-of-touch Washington liberals do not agree that 
chronic deficit spending must come to an end.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people should take heart in two facts. 
First, despite what the defenders of big Government claim, it is 
possible to spend $1.5 trillion in a manner that meets our national 
priorities while reaching a balanced budget in 7 years. It can be done 
without reducing spending on important programs.
  Second, this Congress is dedicated to following through with its 
promises. Mr. Speaker, we promised to balance the budget. We promised 
to reform the welfare system. We promised tax relief to families with 
children. We promised to cut the capital gains tax rate to encourage 
job creation and increase wages. We promised to save Medicare for a 
generation of retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, this Congress will keep those 
promises. While we know what we have to do, the process does take time. 
Restoring fiscal sanity to Government is the most significant change in 
American politics in decades. We are dedicated to looking at every 
program to make improvements and reduce wasteful spending. We are 
listening to people throughout the country to learn different 
approaches that we need to meet the needs within the constraints of a 
balanced budget. This all does take time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that one reason balancing the budget is 
taking so much time is that the Government bureaucracy is actively 
fighting the efforts of their boss, the American people, to balance the 
books.
  The greatest example that I saw was in yesterday's Washington Times 
and other press reports which have indicated that the Secretary of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs is sending partisan, self-serving, big-
government propaganda to VA civil servants using Department resources.
  The most shocking example was that the Secretary has been taking the 
propaganda put together by the President's political hacks and printing 
it on VA employee's pay stubs. Does anyone wonder why the Department of 
Veterans Affairs did not print on the pay stubs that without the 7-year 
balanced budget plan passed by Congress, we will mortgage the future of 
American children with an additional $1.2 trillion in debt? This is a 
gross example of the pervasive practice of Government agencies lobbying 
to maintain the debt-ridden budget process.
  The appropriations process is caught up in this historic budget 
confrontation. Two appropriations bills have been signed by the 
President. The remainder are at various stages in the legislative 
process, including some under a threat of veto. In September, the 
Congress passed a responsible continuing resolution to keep the 
discretionary operations of the Federal Government from shutting down 
at the start of the fiscal year. It is again our intention to keep 
things going as we work all of the spending bills through the full 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people can rest assured that this 
continuing resolution is fiscally responsible. Funding is at a lower 
level than the current continuing resolution and below fiscal year 1995 
amounts. However, we are not replacing the regular appropriations 
process. It is still critical to pass those bills and reorder the 
priorities of the Federal Government away from outdated bureaucracies 
and in favor of working families.
  Mr. Speaker, as we work to make all of the changes that need to be 
accomplished to make the Federal Government serve people rather than 
the other way around, we do not need unnecessary Government shutdown to 
complicate our task. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule and support the joint resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the sooner we get through this, the sooner we can get 
back to the critical work of balancing the Federal budget, saving the 
Medicare system from bankruptcy, ending welfare as we know it, and 
implementing a growth-oriented tax cut that will create more jobs and 
increase the take-home pay of American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of November 7, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 52                 68
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 18                 24
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  6                  8
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 76                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of November 7, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H 11883]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: From 1977 to 1987, it was common practice 
     to include entire appropriations bills in full-year 
     continuing resolutions. Listed below (by calendar and fiscal 
     years) are those bills carried in continuing resolutions for 
     the full year:
       Calendar year 1977 for fiscal year 1978--1 bill--Labor-HEW.
       Calendar year 1978 for fiscal year 1979--1 bill--Energy and 
     Water.
       Calendar year 1979 for fiscal year 1980--3 bills--Foreign 
     Operations; Labor-HHS; and Legislative.
       Calendar year 1980 for fiscal year 1981--4 bills--Labor-
     HHS; Legislative; Commerce-Justice; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1981 for fiscal year 1982--4 bills--Commerce-
     Justice; Labor-HHS; Legislative; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1982 for fiscal year 1983--6 bills--Commerce-
     Justice; Energy and Water; Foreign Operations; Labor-HHS; 
     Legislative; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1983 for fiscal year 1984--3 bills--
     Agriculture; Foreign Operations; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1984 for fiscal year 1985--8 bills--
     Agriculture; Defense; District of Columbia; Foreign 
     Operations; Interior, Military Construction; Transportation; 
     and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1985 for fiscal year 1986--7 bills--
     Agriculture; Defense; District of Columbia; Foreign 
     Operations; Interior; Transportation; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1986 for fiscal year 1987--all 13 bills.
       Calendar year 1987 for fiscal year 1988--all 13 bills.
       Since 1988, bills have not been carried for a full year in 
     a continuing resolution except for the Foreign Operations 
     bill in fiscal year 1992. In addition to the above, in 
     calendar year 1950, 10 bills were included in the ``General 
     Appropriations Act, 1951. The only general bill not included 
     was the District of Columbia bill.
           Sincerely,
                                         Bob Livingston, Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California [Mr. 
Dreier] for yielding the customary half-hour debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this closed rule and the resolution 
it seeks to make in order. Let me begin by reminding my colleagues that 
we are debating this rule today for one reason and one reason only, and 
that is that Congress has not done its job.
  Even though we are already 1 month into the new fiscal year, only 5 
of the 13 appropriations bills have been passed by this Congress and 
sent to the President. Two have been signed into law. Two more await 
the President's signature, but the other nine bills are still being 
worked on in the Senate or in conference, and most have been delayed by 
the nongermane, extraneous, irrelevant legislative provisions that the 
majority has allowed to be included in appropriations bills despite the 
fact that they had to waive our rules to do so, and that now are 
causing intractable disagreements between Republican Members of the 
other House and Republican Members of this House. 

[[Page H 11884]]

  Mr. Speaker, what we ought to be doing today is voting on a 
continuing appropriations measure that is a clean, straightforward 
extension of funding for the Government until the remaining 11 regular 
appropriations bills are passed and signed into law.
  Unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity if this rule is 
adopted. When the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, appeared 
before the Committee on Rules last night, he said, quite correctly, 
that passage of a continuing resolution is necessary in order to 
expedite the business of the House. But the gentleman came to us 
burdened by his leadership with the so-called Istook provision that 
prohibits any recipient of a Federal grant from spending any Federal 
funds on political advocacy, and that limits the amount of private 
funds that Federal grantees may use for political advocacy.
  The Istook proposal may or may not be something that this Congress 
should pass; a great many of us believe it is not. But that is not the 
point. The point is that this language, which is strongly opposed by 
many in both Houses of Congress, has no business being included in this 
continuing appropriations resolution. It should be voted on separately, 
in the normal course of legislative business, like any other 
legislative proposal.

  Its inclusion here by the Republican leadership, in order to pacify 
some of its newly elected, is an unworthy and mischievous act, and one 
that is calculated to prevent either passage of this bill by the Senate 
or its signing into law by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends that this action of 
theirs does not make much political sense either. The public does not 
understand this kind of game playing. We Democrats learned that the 
hard way and my Republican colleagues would be well-advised to take 
note and learn from our mistakes.
  All the public sees, and will see, is a Republican-controlled 
Congress that is incapable of doing Congress most basic work: Passing 
appropriations bills. My colleagues are failing in their responsibility 
of governing, because they are bowing to ideological pressures within 
their own caucus that are going to make it very, very difficult, if not 
impossible, for them to govern effectively.
  We know the other body will not accept the Istook language. They made 
it clear that they will not agree to this language on a separate 
appropriations bill. Indeed, many of our colleagues in the majority in 
this body oppose the Istook amendment. They will oppose this rule 
because it does not allow a separate vote to strip the language out of 
this measure. They state, quite correctly, that Congress has no 
business restricting the ability of businesses, private universities, 
and charitable organizations to participate in national and community 
affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues may hope that, by including the 
Istook language in this critical funding bill, they will force the 
President to accept this proposal or else shut down the Government 
services and programs that Americans depend on. But we believe this 
bill will not even get to the President's desk and that all we are 
doing is unduly extending a process that can, and should, be expedited.
  We also should not be including the provision affecting the Medicare 
part B premium increases in this bill. That is a matter that is being 
addressed in the budget reconciliation bill, and that is where this 
provision making permanent changes in the law belongs.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought not be playing these political games while 
holding the entire Government hostage. If the majority is seriously 
interested in preventing a costly shutdown of the Government, and doing 
that in the most expeditious manner possible, it will reconsider its 
decision to bring this legislation to the floor under this closed rule.

  What we should be doing today, as I said earlier, is voting on a 
clean, unencumbered continuing resolution. If one were before us,it 
would pass easily. Democrats would vote for it, as would a great many 
Republicans.
  It would give our colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and their 
colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, time to resolve, with 
the President and with the Senate, most if not all of the remaining 
differences they have on the remaining appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, in the recent past, when Democrats were in charge around 
here, we usually did the right thing on these appropriations matters, 
at least. We did not attach partisan items to continuing resolutions. 
The House, as a matter of fact, passed 8 continuing resolutions in the 
last two Congresses, all of which were clean. Most did not even need a 
rule. They were considered under unanimous consent requests.
  That is what we should be doing today if the majority really wants to 
get down to tending to the Nation's business. The country is obviously 
waiting for leadership, and for us to end these types of political 
games.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to turn down this rule and to turn, 
instead, to carrying out in a serious and responsible manner our duty 
to govern this great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. The existing continuing 
resolution runs out at midnight next Monday, November 13. The President 
has actually signed only 2 of the 13 general appropriation bills. That 
is the military construction and the agriculture bill, I believe. 
Congress has completed action on three additional bills, energy and 
water, the legislative branch, and the transportation bill. The 
remaining eight are in earlier stages of the legislative process, 
thanks to perhaps a lack of rules over in the Senate. Therefore it is 
absolutely clear that the additional time will be needed to complete 
the remaining bills.
  This rule provides for consideration of the continuing resolution 
which will provide that additional time. This joint resolution extends 
funding for those Government agencies which are not covered by an 
enacted appropriation bill until midnight on Friday, December 1. That 
is shortly after we get back from the Thanksgiving break.
  In addition to providing time, this continuing resolution includes 
several other very important issues. Of special significance is the 
Simpson-Istook-McIntosh provision which is designed to restrict a 
particularly outrageous waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of organizations which apply 
for Federal Government grants and receive taxpayer dollars. Then those 
same organizations turn around and they spend large sums of money 
lobbying the Federal Government to support their particular interest 
and, even worse, to lobby for more money. More, more, more, and more, 
that is all we ever hear around here. That is how we got into this 
fiscal mess we are in today.
  In some cases, those interests are not bad things. But it seems to me 
that each organization should have to make a decision. Either it is 
going to take Government grants to perform functions that the 
Government needs or it is going to be a lobbying organization, in which 
case it should be funded with private money and not taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody's freedom of speech is being denied. Any citizen 
can express himself or herself. However, if an organization is going to 
pay money for lobbying, then it should not at the same time be deriving 
a large portion of its funds from the Federal taxpayers' dollars, some 
of which may be vehemently opposed to that particular agenda. Why 
should the taxpayers have to pay for somebody's point of view that they 
do not support?
  Mr. Speaker, this rule before us today provides a fair procedure for 
consideration of the continuing resolution. To those who would argue 
that other amendments should be made in order on this bill, I would 
note that in the last Congress, controlled by the other 

[[Page H 11885]]
party, there were two rules on continuing resolutions and they were 
both closed rules.
  In the previous Congress, also controlled by the other party, there 
was one rule on a continuing resolution and that was a closed rule as 
well. It is certainly true that we have in this Congress had more open 
rules than in previous Congresses, way more, almost double, but it 
seems to me that this one situation where a motion to recommit with 
instructions in sufficient to protect the rights of the minority.
  For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to 
support this rule and then come out here and vote for this continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I must say, every day I think I cannot 
hear anything more ridiculous but here we are. I am hearing things more 
ridiculous. Let me tell my colleagues what is happening. Imagine when 
you were in school showing up when your homework was 39 days late and 
asking for extra bennies. When the homework was due, only 2 out of 13 
bills were done. Thirty-nine days later, you only have 5 of the 13 
done, and I guess it is 4, I am corrected. We did not quite get to 5. 
So 4 out of 13 have been finished. It is only about 12 percent of the 
budget. And so the Gingrich Republicans have the chutzpah to say, just 
to continue Government going, we would like a few things put in here as 
like a bonus for not having done their homework.
  No. 1, they would like the people who are on Medicare to pay about 
$11 more a month on their Medicare part B premiums. So Medicare part B 
goes up $11 a month because we did not get our homework done. That is 
nice. Then they would like to continue on the Istook gag-arama event, 
which says we have got to gag everyone in America. Heaven forbid people 
should be able to come here and petition their Government like the 
Constitution says. These people that wrote the Constitution must have 
gotten it wrong. We cannot let people in here.
  If this Istook amendment goes through, it is going to be very 
serious. Let us talk about just Colorado. One little group, Project 
Safeguard, I worked very hard with them to find out what was going on 
in domestic violence issues and how well Government was out and 
enforcing different orders for battered women. They are not going to be 
able to come and talk anymore because they are going to be gagged.
  Everybody is going to be gagged. I guess that will give us more time 
to sit around here and vote on things like who is going to be on the 
board of directors of the Smithsonian and avoid real homework.
  This is unbelievable. Here we are, 39 days after we were supposed to 
have this done, we are nowhere close to done. Government is hanging by 
its fingernails and they want all these special things that they cannot 
get in the front doorway through the back door.
  Please wake up. Please vote no against this rule. Bring up a clean 
continuing. I think we deserve a much better Government than that, and 
I think our young people deserve a much better example than that. Try 
and get your kids to do your homework, if you do not, Congress.
  This is outrageous.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma City, OK [Mr. Istook], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have within this legislation what 
is now being referred to as the Simpson-Istook amendment. Trying to 
correct the difficulty that we have with some $39 to $40 billion each 
year in taxpayers' money that is being used for taxpayer-subsidized 
grants to groups that unfortunately too often use that to help them 
come to Congress and ask for more money lobbying at the expense of the 
public.
  I am sorry that the gentlewoman from Colorado has fallen prey to 
misrepresentations that many people have made. For example, someone who 
has the audacity to call this a gag rule because you see, they do not 
want to have to use their own money without Federal subsidies. They 
want the freedom to dip into the taxpayer's pocket and extract money 
from the taxpayer to promote their activity, to promote their political 
agenda, to help them with lobbying political advocacy.
  I say, Mr. Speaker, that is something that they should expect to do 
without expecting a subsidy from the taxpayer.
  We have, for example, one group, the National Council of Senior 
Citizens. Mr. Speaker, they get $73 million each year from Uncle Sam, 
from the taxpayers of the United States. That is 96 percent of their 
budget. Yet it is this very same group that is currently bragging to 
its members saying, we are engaging in a multimillion-dollar TV 
campaign trying to affect what is going on in Congress, saying that we 
are getting hundreds of thousands of people to contact Congress and 
contact the White House and promote the political agenda of the 
National Council of Senior Citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a group that gets 96 percent of its budget from 
the taxpayers. And yet they are a major lobbying group in Washington, 
DC. This legislation does not prohibit anybody from petitioning the 
Government for redress of grievances or from carrying on a political 
agenda. But it says, if they expect to receive taxpayer subsidies, 
which they have chosen to ask for, which they have chosen to accept, 
then they should limit the scope of their political activity.
  We have applied an existing Internal Revenue Service formula that has 
been used for nonprofits called the 501(h) rule that gives them a $1 
million cap. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what group that is dependent upon the 
taxpayers thinks that they need to spend more than $1 million a year in 
lobbying?
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, for groups that are heavily dependent upon 
the taxpayers that receive more than a third of their budget from the 
taxpayers, we have a lower cap.
  I realize there are groups which are dependent upon taxpayers' money 
that have been trying to whip into a frenzy charities across America. 
But, Mr. Speaker, we have an exemption in this bill that exempts 96 
percent of the charities in this country from any limitation. That is 
the provision which states that only if they expend more than $25,000 
in political advocacy do they come within any of these percentage 
limitations whatsoever. Niney-six percent of the 501(c)(3)'s in the 
United States, according to their submissions to the IRS, do not spend 
that much. It is a smaller number that has been abusive, and we are 
trying to target that abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that no one will believe the ridiculous lies and 
accusations that have surrounded this issue because so many groups are 
so desperate to retain their hold on the taxpayers' wallet. I, 
therefore, urge Members to support the rule and, of course, to support 
the underlying resolution.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the distinguished ranking member on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to transact business 
because the Republican Gingrich party has proven that it just cannot 
run this place. We are doing tonight what should have been done in July 
and August. One appropriation bill has become law. There are 12 
floating around out there someplace that will, I hope, eventually 
become law. Maybe they will not. But we are doing more than just 
patching up that hole. We are out to, the GOP is out to get the old 
people again. The GOP is out to get the old people again.
  The GOP is increasing their Medicare payments by $151 that they have 
got to pay every year or, for a small couple of Medicare beneficiaries, 
by over $300 per year in this resolution tonight. And all that really 
does is just reduce the Social Security benefit by that much money, 
because this money is automatically deducted before the Social Security 
payments go out from the Social Security beneficiaries. And to think 
that there are 8 million women, widows or single, that live on Social 
Security that get less than $8000 a year. But they are going to charge 
those 8 million women $151 a year more to get the same or less Medicare 
benefits than they get today.
  The good old party is at it again, the get the old people party is at 
it again. I cannot believe that they have talked 

[[Page H 11886]]
all this time about trying to gag the Girl Scouts over there and have 
not even mentioned all of the 40 million people who are on Medicare who 
are getting stuck at least $151 a year in additional payments that they 
have got to make.
  It is time to put an end to this stuff. I hope that the voters will 
go to the polls, Mr. Speaker, and throw you out of that chair. You 
cannot run this place. You have got no heart, and you have got no 
program that makes any human sense.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas], one of our GOP leaders, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding time to me.
  I had not planned to talk during the rule debate. I will talk on the 
continuing resolution. But I do have to say that the continued 
outbursts from the gentleman from Florida have to be answered. What he 
did not mention, of course, in this continuing resolution was the fact 
that we discovered that Medicare does not pay for orally ingested drugs 
for certain types of breast cancer. If you inject it, it can be paid 
for. If it is taken orally, it does not. Why should we wait for a 
provision that fits it in a more general structure to move a decision 
and tell Medicare to provide those oral drugs for certain types of 
breast cancer? First, it will save lives. Second, it actually saves 
$157 million over 7 years. I will confess, that is on this CR. We 
thought it made sense.

                              {time}  1715

  In addition to that, for men who suffer from prostate cancer, and in 
fact it is incurable, there is a procedure, a medical procedure, which 
significantly eases the pain and prolongs life. It is a combination of 
injectable hormone drugs and orally taken hormone drugs. Medicare 
similarly will not pay for the orally taken drugs. Why? Because it is 
an old-fashioned system that needs to be updated.
  Again we could wait for the updated procedure and have some people 
needlessly die. What we have done is included it on this CR so that we 
will tell the doctor that, if the program is a combination of 
injectable and orally taken hormone drugs to assist in easing the pain 
and prolonging someone's life who is suffering from prostate cancer, 
let us not wait around, let us move it on the first available product. 
That is in this CR.
  In addition to that, we have said that it makes no sense whatsoever 
to blindly let law go forward, reduce the premiums to seniors, and then 
increase them later when we have to pay the piper. The argument that 
somehow Republicans are heartless because we have a program to save 
Medicare and part of the solution is asking seniors to stay with the 
current premium payment on part B; the seniors' groups themselves have 
said it is not an issue. As a matter of fact, in September in front of 
the subcommittee in many, many of the hearings, more than a dozen and a 
half that we had, the President of the AARP, Mr. Eugene Lerman, said:

       The House leadership proposal indicates that Medicare's 
     part B premium would be set at 13.5 percent of the program 
     costs. That's the current rate. Maintain the current rate. 
     And the new affluence test premium would be imposed on higher 
     income beneficiaries, meaning those people who can pay who 
     are wealthy. This is a volunteer program, ought not to 
     continue to be subsidized by young people who are paying 
     taxes into the general fund, that if these people are wealthy 
     enough to pay for this voluntary premium, they ought to pay 
     for it.

  He goes on to say--

       The outline goes on to say there would be no change in 
     Medicare copayments and deductibles. We held the line. Just 
     keep them at the current premium. That would be the fair-
     share responsibility of seniors in solving the bankruptcy 
     question under Medicare.

  What they said was, ``AARP is pleased that the proposal would limit 
these direct increases in beneficiary out-of-pocket costs.''
  Now what the Democrats want to do is be irresponsible, and demagog 
the issue, and get people to believe that they can in their old-
fashioned way tell seniors they can pay less and they can keep the 
program. The program is going bankrupt. We have got to change the way 
we do business. The way they did business has bankrupted the program. 
We have to change the way we do business. It makes no sense whatsoever 
to sit blindly by waiting for the right vehicle to lock in the current 
rate that the seniors themselves have said is an acceptable rate. 
Instead it will blindly go down, and no one believes that we can reduce 
the premium to seniors and save the program.
  What we have said is it is a fair-share responsibility structure, no 
copayments, no increase in the deductibles, but hold the line. Even the 
seniors say this is reasonable, but the Democrats, looking for 
arguments, looking for issues, say this is unfair. What is unfair is 
the irresponsible way Democrats continue to pander to seniors thinking 
that somehow will put them back in the driver's seat. Do my colleagues 
not understand they wrecked the car when they were in the driver's 
seat?
  Mr. Speaker, what we have got is a solution to the program, and the 
seniors are agreeing it is a fair-share responsibility.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark].
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me in the well 
began to sell the preposterous issue that they voted to protect seniors 
or they will in this bill. It is wrong. That gentleman that was in the 
well and all Democrats, save one, voted to cut out an increase in 
prostate cancer screening to the level required by the National 
Cancer--because they want the extra $3 billion to give to the doctors 
in a late-night payoff that Speaker Gingrich was making to the AMA. 
They vote against giving women annual mammograms, as required, because 
they did not have the money, and they come here and tell us that in 
this CR they are going to help the seniors. Nonsense.
  Pay the piper? They are paying off the rich Republicans in tax cuts. 
That is why they need to increase $300 a year in the part B premium to 
the average senior in this country, and it will happen on January 1, 
1996. None of that increase goes to save the Medicare trust fund. It 
all goes to pay tax cuts for the rich. None of the part B premium 
increase goes into the trust fund.
  Let us get it straight. This is a sneaky way to increase the part B 
premium on the seniors. It kicks up their premium to $104.30 a month. 
It is more than even in the House-passed Republican reconciliation 
bill. They did not have enough money at the last minute.
  Mr. Speaker, they cannot add straight, they cannot get to 20 with 
their shoes and socks on, they cannot run the Government, and they do 
not understand Medicare, so when they fail, they stick it to the 
seniors once again, and they stick it to the poorest of the seniors 
unfairly. They cut out their cancer screening so they could pay off the 
doctors big time. They increase the amount that poor seniors will have 
to pay so they can give tax cuts to the rich. It has got to stop. We 
cannot let them get away with this in the dead of night, trying to 
sneak these increases through on a continuing resolution.
  Vote down the rule. Make them run this place the right way. make them 
tell the seniors how they are gouging them up front, how they are 
cutting back on their cancer screening, and how they are raising this 
money for tax cuts for the rich, and let us see if they dare vote up 
front to raise the part B premium for tax cuts for the rich. They do 
not have the nerve to vote for that.
  Vote down the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], my friend from Sanibel who is chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater San Dimas for 
yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Rules 
Subcommittee on the Legislation and Budget Process, I understand the 
concerns raised about coming to the floor with a second continuing 
resolution.

[[Page H 11887]]

  I know many people are confused about these procedures--perhaps even 
some of our Members. Our subcommittee is currently engaged in an 
examination of the entire budget process. There have been several 
helpful proposals on ways to improve and clarify the process, including 
the Barton-Stenholm-Cox package introduced today that would provide for 
an automatic mechanism to keep the Government running in these 
situations. But here and now, the fact is that we are facing two 
problems: first, spending for most agencies has not been given final 
approval. A stop-gap measure, a continuing resolution is needed to 
prevent a partial Government shutdown. Second, the Treasury is rapidly 
approaching the debt ceiling--a type of credit limit established by 
law. Unless this limit is extended, the Federal Government's ability to 
make payments on everything from Treasury bill interest to Social 
Security benefits will be limited.
  The House is scheduled to address the debt limit tomorrow. It is our 
promise that in 7 short years we will no longer have to worry about 
increasing the Government's borrowing authority, because our budget 
will be balanced and the cash coming in will be equal to what is paid 
out.
  But the important point to remember today is that unlike past years, 
Congress is considering a continuing resolution that is consistent with 
a balanced budget, not an ever-growing multibillion-dollar deficit.
  But Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is certainly not a new 
phenomenon--indeed since the 1974 Budget Act became law we have seen 
many continuing resolutions. The last time Congress passed a 
reconciliation bill, in 1993, a total of four continuing resolutions 
were needed before the appropriations process was completed. In other 
years, entire appropriations measures have been funded simply through 
continuing resolutions. I commend Chairman Livingston and the 
Appropriations Committee members for the tremendous work that they have 
done in passing all 13 appropriations bills in the House, and in 
crafting this particular continuing resolution to meet the legitimate 
needs of the Federal Government, while taking steps to ensure that 
spending in this resolution stays well within the parameters to meet 
our balanced budget target in 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress faces a simple choice: pass this limited 
extension of the continuing resolution, or allow a partial and 
unnecessary shutdown of the Federal Government. The clear and 
responsible path is to approve this measure and get on with our 
pressing business. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It fairly 
and timely brings this vital bill to the floor.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr.. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule. We are now 39 days into the new fiscal year, yet only 2 of 13 
spending bills have been signed into law. Today, instead of moving the 
process along, we will again dawdle over unrelated issues such as the 
Istook amendment that has nothing to do with the budget and is 
unconstitutional and un-American. Because they can never get this 
legislation enacted because of its own demerits, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and his supporters are willing to shut this 
Government down in order to shut the American people up.
  But I do not want to be unfair. The Istook language says it is OK to 
speak if we follow generally accepted accounting principles, subject 
ourselves to a Federal audit, assume the presumption of guilt, and hold 
ourselves out to harassing lawsuits by individuals acting as private 
attorney generals. Then it is OK to speak.
  I urge my colleagues strongly to vote against this rule. It 
represents everything bad in a closed and autocratic system.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose both the Medicare 
premium increase and the Istook provision that were attached to the 
continuing resolution late last night. It is astounding that the 
Republicans believe they can double senior citizens' Medicare premiums 
in a must-pass bill. The Medicare increase has not even been signed 
into law, but the Republicans claim they need to force the President to 
approve it in order to get computers updated. This is outrageous. Are 
we going to force our seniors to pay for the tax break for the wealthy 
under the guise of updating computers?
  Seniors know what is going on, but the Republicans are afraid of 
well-informed citizens. As if the Medicare provision was not bad 
enough, the continuing resolution also contains the so-called 
``revised'' Istook amendment. Istook will sever a vital link between 
the people and their Government. Seniors and their advocates will have 
no opportunity to speak out on those matters that directly impact their 
lives. This is a clearly unconstitutional attempt to gag the voices of 
citizens who want to exercise the most basic American guarantee; the 
right to petition their Government. For our seniors and to preserve our 
basic rights as Americans, vote against the resolution.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as millions of Americans across 
this country were sending a message to this Republican Congress to 
reject the Medicare cut plan, the Committee on Rules was meeting here 
in the Capitol to approve this rule, to call up a bill to raise 
premiums for Medicare recipients in January of this coming year. Will 
one dime of that raise in premiums go into the Medicare trust fund? No, 
it will not. It will go to pay for tax breaks for those at the top of 
the economic ladder.
  The Republicans simply do not want to hear the complaints of the 
American people who say, ``You broke your promise when you said you 
would not cut Medicare and Social Security. You are cutting it, you are 
raising our premiums. We will have to pay more and get less for health 
care.''
  Of course, they have been accomplishing all of this through their 
secret task forces. Now they are meeting in secret here in the Capitol. 
We even had bloodhounds out this afternoon trying to sniff out their 
secret meetings, because they do not want to do it in the bright light 
of day.
  There is a direct connection with this so-called Istook amendment. 
Which lobby groups in America did they go after? The loophole lawyers? 
The people who put all the pork barrel in these appropriations bills? 
No, they are after the Girl Scouts and the Red Cross, those very 
dangerous groups like the Girl Scouts; and in this case, the National 
Council of Senior Citizens, because they had the courage to speak out 
against these Medicare cuts, and they just happened to administer a 
program with Federal money to help provide jobs for our seniors, the 
same people that are going to need these jobs after these Medicare cuts 
go into effect.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to comment on the 
incompetent management of this House by the Republican leadership. We 
have had bills pushed through without hearings, without an opportunity 
for debate, without a chance to offer amendments.
  Today we have before us a continuing resolution, because the regular 
appropriations bills have not been passed in the regular order of the 
process in the Congress. Attached to this continuing resolution are two 
very offensive amendments. One is the Istook amendment, which would 
deny the opportunity for groups to lobby their own Government with 
their own funds. The second is the Medicare premium increase. This is 
an increase of premiums from $46.10 a month to $55, an increase of 
almost 20 percent of monthly payments by the elderly. Why this 
increase? It is certainly not to reform Medicare, it is not to protect 
the solvency of the hospital trust fund. It is, pure and simple, a way 
to take more 

[[Page H 11888]]
money out of the pockets of the Medicare beneficiaries.
  Mr. Speaker, I find this whole way of conducting business 
unprecedented. The Istook amendment is tremendously offensive. We will 
have no opportunity to offer amendments to this intrusion into the 
first amendment rights of American citizens. I urge opposition to the 
rule, I urge opposition to the underlying continuing resolution, and I 
would hope the Republican leadership would try to get their act 
together, get the bills on the floor, give people a chance to debate 
them, and move through a regular, normal process.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
and in particular to the provisions in the continuing resolution which 
would enact one of the largest Federal regulatory structures in our 
history. I am disappointed that the Istook amendment was included in 
this resolution. The Silence America amendment is the most excessive, 
intrusive government regulation ever proposed. Republicans ran on a 
platform of less government, and now they want to impose a regulation 
that would affect more than just nonprofits, it goes so far as to 
regulate individuals and organizations which get something directly or 
indirectly from the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision will prevent charities and organizations 
like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the YMCA from conducting their 
charitable mission. The Istook amendment is government overregulation 
at its worst.
  And while this continuing resolution would allow government to 
interfere with the work of worthy charities and nonprofits, it tells 
millions of working families that government will barely lift a finger 
to help pay for heating.
  Winter is fast approaching in my part of the country, but by cutting 
LIHEAP, the low-income heating program, we would force families to 
choose between paying for heat and paying for basic necessities.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution does not represent basic 
fairness, and it certainly does not show good commonsense. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this resolution and oppose this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to some pretty 
vitriolic attacks which have really obfuscated the issue.
  To clarify it, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I love to hear the other side talking about how the 
process is not working. My goodness, you would think that they had 
never heard of a continuing resolution. When you look at the historical 
record of appropriations activities and find out that between 1977 and 
1987, for example, when they controlled the House of Representatives, 
the Government operated on something like about 35 to 40 continuing 
resolutions. In some years, 1987 and 1988, the total appropriations 
process operated under continuing resolution for both entire years. It 
is ironic that we would hear some of these arguments.
  For the folks on my side, I would have to say that if Members listen 
to them, they can find reason why they might not like this continuing 
resolution. But remember, it is only for 2 weeks, for crying out loud. 
The world is not going to come to an end if this continuing resolution 
passes. In fact, quite the contrary. This keeps Government business 
going. This continuing resolution is important to keep Government 
business going, and if the Members on our side vote against this rule, 
they give the other side ammunition for the argument that we cannot 
govern.
  We are governing. The President, for some unforeseen and unknown 
reason, vetoed one of our bills. We decided we are not going to give 
him any more cheap vetoes. We have all of our bills working through the 
process, and within a very short period of time, perhaps within the 
next 2 to 3 weeks, we will have all the bills to him and he can sign 
them or he can exercise his right to veto them. But the process is 
moving. If this rule does not pass and if this continuing resolution 
does not pass, then the process stops, and then there will be a break 
in our work, but that is what the other side wants.
  We have to show that we are governing. We need a little bit more 
time. We need another continuing resolution, and in order to get that 
continuing resolution we need this rule to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell my friends, stop looking for every 
piece of legislation to be perfect. There is no such thing as perfect 
legislation. With a little bit of give on either side, we will get 90 
percent of what we want. We will govern, we will balance the budget, we 
will stay on the glide path toward putting America back toward fiscal 
responsibility that the other side abdicated for 40 years, but we need 
to pass this rule. We need to pass this continuing resolution. We need 
to govern.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member 
on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been described as a bill to 
continue the Government. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is a bill 
to bring the Government to a halt. If indeed this bill was intended to 
continue the Government, it would not come before us slashing 
education, cutting veterans' benefits, tying up every charity in the 
country, virtually, in red ink, jacking up Medicare premiums, and 
increasing the differences between the parties. It would, instead, be 
trying to bridge those differences.
  Eighty-nine percent of the appropriations, which are supposed to be 
passed before the beginning of the year, have not yet become law. We 
have only 11 percent of the appropriations which have passed so far. 
That is not the fault of the President. This bill ratchets up the 
pressure on the President because he has not signed bills that Congress 
has not sent him yet. That is a legislatively impossible act, yet that 
is what they are asking him to do.
  There are only four bills which have passed the finish line and 
gotten to the White House. Two have been signed, two more will be 
signed. This gap for every other major appropriation bill, representing 
89 percent of the total appropriated items, is the fault of the 
Congress, not the President, because you have had fights between the 
Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House over abortion 
language, over environmental language, over the Istook language. That 
is what is holding us up.
  This bill ought to be a simple continuing resolution for 1 month, 
rather than having all of these bells and whistles which will just 
cause problems.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask of the gentleman in the well, I would 
ask what percentage of the appropriations bills has the President 
indicated he will veto, having not participated in this process at all?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. The President has the right to review every bill, once he 
gets it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Has he threatened to veto every appropriation bill so 
far?
  Mr. OBEY. You are trying to blame the President for not signing bills 
you have not been able to send him yet.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. He certainly has not given any indication whatsoever 
that he wants to participate in this process.
  Mr. OBEY. How can the President decide ahead of time what he is going 
to sign?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me say, I rise in favor of the rule 
and in favor of the underlying legislation, and address one of the 
particularly important aspects of this legislation. That is the 
amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Istook, Mr. Simpson in the Senate, the 

[[Page H 11889]]
gentleman from Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, and myself to end welfare for 
lobbyists.
  First, let me say this is real lobbying reform. For once we are going 
to say we are going to cut off the taxpayer dollars going to the big 
lobbying groups here in Washington. We are going to end the money 
laundering scheme that lets them take that money and come back and 
lobby us to spend more money.
  Second, this reform is absolutely critical for us to reach the 
balanced budget. It is unbelievable, at a time when we are working to 
balance the budget, that people are saying we should allow $39 billion, 
billion with a B, in grants to go to groups who then turn around and 
hire lobbyists here in Washington to ask us to spend more money.
  I think this proposal will allow us to balance the budget and will 
end the conflict of interest that has prevented Congress from doing 
that for 40 years. This proposal also is a reasonable compromise with 
Senator Simpson. It says we are going to screen out real charities who 
are doing real work and not have them be covered by these limitations, 
because they are already covered by the limitations in the IRS Code. 
But the lobbying groups back here in Washington, they will not like it, 
because they are going to be limited, and they are going to have a 
limit on using taxpayer funds to fund their lobbying operations.
  Ultimately, what we need to do is to make it very, very clear that if 
you want to lobby, you need to do it on your own time, and with your 
own dime, rather than go to the taxpayer and say, ``We want grants to 
subsidize our lobbyists in Washington, D.C.''
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this particular rule, which defies seniors and defies the nonprofits 
back home.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook provision.
  One of the major supporters of this provision, Mr. McIntosh, said at 
a recent subcommittee hearing that his constituents are, and I quote, 
``shocked and outraged'' when he tells them how, in his words, ``tax 
dollars are being used to subsidize special interest's lobbying 
activities.''
  My constituents, Mr. Speaker, are not shocked by the activities of 
groups like the Red Cross, the YMCA, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 
They don't consider them a special interest. But the Red Cross, the 
YMCA, and MADD all oppose the Istook provision because it would force 
them to spend time filling out Government forms instead of helping 
people. It would force them to defend against harassing lawsuits by 
people who don't like what they're doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent a lot of farmers. My farmers may receive 
crop insurance payments from the Federal Government. But the Istook 
provision would prevent farmers from getting these grants unless they 
could prove that during the previous 5 years they had spent less than 
20 percent of their own funds on political advocacy.

  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what my constituents are telling me 
about this provision.
  One of my constituents is a trustee of the Miami Museum of Science. I 
have here a letter he recently wrote to me opposing the Istook 
provision because it would make it more difficult for the museum to 
obtain funds from local governments. Why are we making it harder for 
local charities to get funding from local governments?
  Another of my constituents is chairman of the Florida Association of 
Nonprofit Organizations. He wrote to me that the Istook provision would 
require 13,000 charities in Florida to maintain detailed records on how 
they spend their own money--not Federal money--their own money.
  But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what really shocks my constituents. 
Hurricanes! Yes, hurricanes. Under the Istook provision my 
constituents--such as hospitals and private schools--might not be able 
to get emergency grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
repair their facilities after they're destroyed by a hurricane. Why? 
Because they spend their own funds on political advocacy with State and 
local governments. Even if they do get the FEMA grant, they'll have to 
keep detailed records on how much of their own funds they spend on 
political advocacy.

  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge those Members who come from areas 
which have farmers, or local charities, or natural disasters--such as 
floods, hurricanes, or earthquakes--to join me in opposing this 
shocking and outrageous provision.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and this bill. As Members 
know, the rule includes the so-called Istook provision, an extremist 
idea to restrict the ability of all types of organizations to use their 
own funds to participate in community and national affairs. It would 
restrict the Red Cross, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the YMCA, the 
Heart Association, and hundreds of other charities in carrying out 
their mission of helping folks across this Nation.
  The rule denies the House the chance to strike this ugly and un-
American provision from the continuing resolution. Its 22 pages are 
stunningly irrelevant to any continuing resolution.
  It is already, illegal to use Federal funds to lobby. What this 
provision is really about is regulating and restricting the way 
charities and other groups use their own private money to speak to 
their elected officials about what their communities need.

                              {time}  1745

  There are many reasons to oppose it: The massive redtape and 
bureaucracy forced on all of the tens of thousands of affected 
organizations as they have to file their annual political activity 
reports with the Federal Government. The audits that can be imposed on 
all grantees, individuals, small and large charities, businesses of all 
sizes. This provision's incredibly broad definition of political 
advocacy which goes way beyond traditional lobbying to include every 
conceivable kind of contact with any level of government, trying to 
inform the public about legislation, and, if you can believe this, a 
definition that even attributes to one organization the political 
advocacy activities of another with which it does business, if the 
other organization exceeds these silly limits on free speech.
  The bounty hunter lawsuits that this provision encourages against all 
of those affected: individuals, businesses, churches that are swept up 
by this net. And the unreasonable shifting of the burden of proof to 
all of those individuals, churches, charities, businesses, to prove 
their innocence, to prove their compliance, not by the usual burden of 
proof of preponderance of the evidence, but by a very much higher 
standard, clear and convincing.
  Finally, the broad definition of ``grant,'' including not just funds, 
but anything of value that anyone receives from the Federal Government, 
again affecting literally millions of Americans.
  At a time when we are asking more of charities in America, why in the 
world do we want to force the American Red Cross to limit its ability 
to work with local governments in emergency preparedness and making 
sure the blood supply is safe? Why in the world do we want to restrict 
the ability of Mothers Against Drunk Driving to work with State 
legislatures for safer highways? Why in the world do we want to gag the 
YMCA in its efforts in our local communities to improve daycare 
facilities and to fight the gang problem? Why, indeed?
  Mr. Speaker, for these and many, many other reasons, we should defeat 
this closed rule, force a clear and separate vote on this misguided 
proposal. It is certainly the most egregious attack on the basic values 
of this democracy that we have seen in a long, long time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a hardworking new 
colleague, the gentleman from Langley, WA, Mr. Metcalf.
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


  announcement of intention to offer motion to instruct on h.r. 2126, 
             department of defense appropriations act, 1996

  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of rule XXVIII, 
clause 1(c), I am announcing tomorrow that I will offer a motion to 
instruct the House conferees on the bill H.R. 2126, to insist on 
sections 8102 and 8111 of the House-passed bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and particularly to the 
so-

[[Page H 11890]]
called Istook language that is in this bill. The reputation of an 
excellent nonprofit company in California has been sullied because of 
the inflammatory and the inaccurate information being circulated by 
proponents of the Istook amendment. There is an organization called 
HANDSNET which operates in California, which was supported heavily by 
Governor Deukmejian and operates a national on-line electronic 
communication network of 5,000 human service organizations. It is 
entirely supported by member fees and foundation and corporate grants. 
They recently received a $200,000 competitive grant from the Department 
of Commerce on the national infrastructure issues to support the 
training of national human service organizations to become more 
computer literate. The grant was matched by $200,000 additional 
foundation and corporate grants.
  What is being lost in this rhetoric is that HANDSNET is a carrier, a 
conduit vehicle, for distribution of information, not a publisher. Do 
not shoot the messenger; in this case, HANDSNET, just because they are 
delivering a message that you do not like. I ask for defeat of the 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking, 
thoughtful new Member, the gentleman from Timonium, MD, Mr. Ehrlich.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, they say timing is everything in life, and certainly 
that applies to what I have to say today. I rise in support of the 
rule.
  HANDSNET receives Department of Commerce grant, Mr. Speaker, 
$100,000. HANDSNET in turn funds calls to action. I happen to bring 
these calls to action to the floor today because they are the essential 
element of this initiative. HANDSNET receives NTIA grant, Mr. Speaker, 
and then we get to the calls to action. Urgent: Save child nutrition 
programs, block Republican block grants. Oppose dismantling affordable 
housing, Mr. Speaker. Victory over Istook gag rule, Mr. Speaker. 
Slaughter resolution recording false document, Mr. Speaker. Stop 
English-only proposals in Congress, Mr. Speaker. Budget bill bad for 
family farms, Mr. Speaker. Istook amendment status update, stop budget 
reconciliation bill. Istook amendment, call your representatives. 
Efforts to kill Istook amendment are paying off.
  Folks, these are your tax dollars used by one organization. It is 
exactly why this element is on the floor today; it is exactly why the 
majority feels as it does. Mr. Speaker, this is all about taxpayer-
funded lobbying, it is all about writing this dirty little secret in 
this town. Mr. Speaker, it is all about accountability, and Mr. 
Speaker, at a bottom line, it is all about restoring the sense of 
mission that true charities, not this one, Mr. Speaker, but true 
charities who are truly interested in helping those in need in our 
society today.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear from some of the speeches today on the 
Istook amendment, including the previous speaker, that many new Members 
of Congress simply do not understand that lobbying with taxpayers' 
funds is now illegal in the United States. When citizens come to 
Washington and they walk around these buildings that house their Member 
of Congress, they are struck by the fact that the doors to the office 
of Members of Congress are all wide open, all wide open. In the Rayburn 
Building, in the Cannon Building, in the Longworth Building, you walk 
down the halls and your Congressman's door is open. It is a long 
tradition in this Congress, and it is in keeping with the unblemished 
access that this Congress has assured for the citizens to reach their 
elected officials. America has a 200-plus-year tradition of unhindered 
right of the citizen to petition their government.
  Republicans ran for office saying they wanted Government off of our 
back. It turns out they want the citizens out of their offices. That is 
what the Istook amendment is all about.
  Now, who are there groups, these awful, terrible groups that they 
would silence, and whose membership they would silence? American Red 
Cross, the YMCA, the American Heart Association, the Girl Scouts of 
America, the League of Women Voters, the American Lung Association. Are 
those groups so terrible that if they receive a pittance of public 
funding from the taxpayer that their right to petition the Government 
on behalf of their Members should be stricken for the first time in 
American history? It is outrageous. People should be allowed to reach 
us unhindered. That is why all of those congressional doors have been 
opened. Do not close them today with the Istook amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, almost 3 yours ago, General Powell made the announcement 
that he was not going to run for the President of the United States. 
But he said he is a Republican because he is convinced that the 
Republicans have the energy and ideas to move us towards a balanced 
budget. The real tragedy is that if we look over the last 40 years, 
unfortunately, the Democrats have driven us to this point of a 
horrendous, nearly $5 trillion national debt. We have the 
responsibility to govern. It is obvious that what is today the minority 
party will not, because they have not been able to. We have a 
responsibility to balance the budget; they have not been able to do it, 
and we are stepping up to the plate now and doing that. And, most 
important, we have a responsibility to be honest with senior citizens.
  The Government is going to be paying 68.5 percent of part B premiums. 
There is a sense that we are somehow pulling the rug out from under 
senior citizens. Everyone recognizes that the system is headed toward 
bankruptcy. On April 3 of this year, three members of the President's 
Cabinet joined in recognizing that fact. We now are dealing responsibly 
with that issue.
  This continuing resolution is very important, it is for a short 
period of time; the Democrats have used them for years and years and 
years, and sometimes the CR has governed for the entire year. Let us go 
with this very short period of time; let us responsibly deal with this. 
We are doing it as the majority party. I urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution to support the continuing resolution when it comes 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and I oppose the bill. I 
want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] 
especially in opposition to the rule and the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
resolution.
  the question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  the vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 210, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 773]

                               YEAS--216

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier

[[Page H 11891]]

     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Fields (LA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Thornton
     Towns
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1818

  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 257, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to the rule, the House 
will now immediately consider the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 115 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 115

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and 
     other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year 
     1996, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

       Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 for continuing 
     projects or activities including the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this joint resolution) which were conducted in the fiscal 
     year 1995 and for which appropriations, funds, or other 
     authority would be available in the following appropriations 
     Acts:
       The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, 
     notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, section 701 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, and section 
     53 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act;
       The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, 
     notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947;
       The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1996, notwithstanding section 10 
     of Public Law 91-672 and section 15(a) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956;
       The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, H.R. 2492;
       The Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1996:

     Provided, That whenever the amount which would be made 
     available or the authority which would be granted in these 
     Acts is greater than that which would be available or granted 
     under current operations, the pertinent project or activity 
     shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the 
     current rate.
       (b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or 
     the authority which would be granted under an Act listed in 
     this section as passed by the House as of the date of 
     enactment of this joint resolution, is different from that 
     which would be available or granted under such Act as passed 
     by the Senate as of the date of enactment of this joint 
     resolution, the pertinent project or activity shall be 
     continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the current 
     rate or the rate permitted by the action of the House or the 
     Senate, whichever is lower, under the authority and 
     conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for 
     the fiscal year 1995: Provided, That where an item is not 
     included in either version or where an item is included in 
     only one version of the Act as passed by both Houses as of 
     the date of enactment of this joint resolution, the pertinent 
     project or activity shall not be continued except as provided 
     for in section 111 or 112 under the appropriation, fund, or 
     authority granted by the applicable appropriations Act for 
     the fiscal year 1995 and under the authority and conditions 
     provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal 
     year 1995.
       (c) Whenever an Act listed in this section has been passed 
     by only the House or only the Senate as of the date of 
     enactment of this joint resolution, the pertinent project or 
     activity shall be continued under the appropriation, fund, or 
     authority granted by the one House at a rate for operations 
     not exceeding the current rate or the rate permitted by the 
     action of the one House, whichever is lower, and under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995: Provided, That 
     where an item is funded in the applicable appropriations Act 
     for the fiscal year 1995 and not included in the version 
     passed by the one House as of the date of enactment of this 
     joint resolution, the pertinent project or activity shall not 
     be continued except as provided for in section 111 or 112 
     under the appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the 
     applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 and 
     under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995.

[[Page H 11892]]

       Sec. 102. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department 
     of Defense shall be used for new production of items not 
     funded for production in fiscal year 1995 or prior years, for 
     the increase in production rates above those sustained with 
     fiscal year 1995 funds, or to initiate, resume, or continue 
     any project, activity, operation, or organization which are 
     defined as any project, subproject, activity, budget 
     activity, program element, and subprogram within a program 
     element and for investment items are further defined as a P-1 
     line item in a budget activity within an appropriation 
     account and an R-1 line item which includes a program element 
     and subprogram element within an appropriation account, for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not 
     available during the fiscal year 1995: Provided, That no 
     appropriation or funds made available or authority granted 
     pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense shall 
     be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing advance 
     procurement funding for economic order quantity procurement 
     unless specifically appropriated later.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner which would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. 104. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to 
     initiate or resume any project or activity for which 
     appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available 
     during the fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 105. No provision which is included in an 
     appropriations Act enumerated in section 101 but which was 
     not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1995 and which by its terms is applicable to more than 
     one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable to 
     any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this joint 
     resolution.
       Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint 
     resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act, 
     appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until 
     (a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or 
     activity provided for in this joint resolution, or (b) the 
     enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by 
     both Houses without any provision for such project or 
     activity, or (c) December 1, 1995, whichever first occurs.
       Sec. 107. Appropriations made and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall cover all obligations 
     or expenditures incurred for any program, project, or 
     activity during the period for which funds or authority for 
     such project or activity are available under this joint 
     resolution.
       Sec. 108. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint 
     resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, 
     fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained 
     is enacted into law.
       Sec. 109. No provision in the appropriations Act for the 
     fiscal year 1996 referred to in section 101 of this joint 
     resolution that makes the availability of any 
     appropriation provided therein dependent upon the 
     enactment of additional authorizing or other legislation 
     shall be effective before the date set forth in section 
     106(c) of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 110. Appropriations and funds made available by or 
     authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be 
     used without regard to the time limitations for submission 
     and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of 
     title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be 
     construed to waive any other provision of law governing the 
     apportionment of funds.
       Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, whenever an Act listed in 
     section 101 as passed by both the House and Senate as of the 
     date of enactment of this joint resolution, does not include 
     funding for an ongoing project or activity for which there is 
     a budget request, or whenever an Act listed in section 101 
     has been passed by only the House or only the Senate as of 
     the date of enactment of this joint resolution, and an item 
     funded in fiscal year 1995 is not included in the version 
     passed by the one House, or whenever the rate for operations 
     for an ongoing project or activity provided by section 101 
     for which there is a budget request would result in the 
     project or activity being significantly reduced, the 
     pertinent project or activity may be continued under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 by increasing the 
     rate for operations provided by section 101 to a rate for 
     operations not to exceed one that provides the minimal level 
     that would enable existing activities to continue. No new 
     contracts or grants shall be awarded in excess of an amount 
     that bears the same ratio to the rate for operations provided 
     by this section as the number of days covered by this 
     resolution bears to 366. For the purposes of the Act, the 
     minimal level means a rate for operations that is reduced 
     from the current rate by 40 percent.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, whenever the rate for 
     operations for any continuing project or activity provided by 
     section 101 or section 111 for which there is a budget 
     request would result in a furlough of Government employees, 
     that rate for operations may be increased to the minimum 
     level that would enable the furlough to be avoided. No new 
     contracts or grants shall be awarded in excess of an amount 
     that bears the same ratio to the rate for operations provided 
     by this section as the number of days covered by this 
     resolution bears to 366.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except sections 106, 111, and 112, for those 
     programs that had high initial rates of operation or complete 
     distribution of funding at the beginning of the fiscal year 
     in fiscal year 1995 because of distributions of funding to 
     States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, similar 
     distributions of funds for fiscal year 1996 shall not be made 
     and no grants shall be awarded for such programs funded by 
     this resolution that would impinge on final funding 
     prerogatives.
       Sec. 114. This joint resolution shall be implemented so 
     that only the most limited funding action of that permitted 
     in the resolution shall be taken in order to provide for 
     continuation of projects and activities.
       Sec. 115. The provisions of section 132 of the District of 
     Columbia Appropriations Act, 1988, Public Law 100-202, shall 
     not apply for this joint resolution.
       Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the authority and conditions 
     for the application of appropriations for the Office of 
     Technology Assessment as contained in the Conference Report 
     on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, House 
     Report 104-212, shall be followed when applying the funding 
     made available by this joint resolution.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, any distribution of funding 
     under the Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research 
     account in the Department of Education may be made up to an 
     amount that bears the same ratio to the rate for operation 
     for this account provided by this joint resolution as the 
     number of days covered by this resolution bears to 366.
       Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the authorities provided 
     under subsection (a) of section 140 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
     103-236) shall remain in effect during the period of this 
     joint resolution, notwithstanding paragraph (3) of said 
     subsection.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the amount made available to 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the heading 
     Salaries and Expenses, shall include, in addition to direct 
     appropriations, the amount it collects under the fee rate and 
     offsetting collection authority contained in Public Law 103-
     352, which fee rate and offsetting collection authority shall 
     remain in effect during the period of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 120. Until enactment of legislation providing funding 
     for the entire fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, for the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies, funds 
     available for necessary expenses of the Bureau of Mines 
     are for continuing limited health and safety and related 
     research, materials partnerships, and minerals information 
     activities; for mineral assessments in Alaska; and for 
     terminating all other activities of the Bureau of Mines.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, funds for the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall be made available in the 
     appropriation accounts which are provided in H.R. 2099 as 
     reported on September 13, 1995.
       Sec. 122. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for 
     projects and activities that would be funded under the 
     heading ``International Organizations and Conferences, 
     Contributions to International Organizations'' in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, shall be the 
     amount provided by the provisions of sections 101, 111, and 
     112 multiplied by the ratio of the number of days covered by 
     this resolution to 366 and multiplied further by 1.27.
       Sec. 123. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations of 
     the following projects or activities shall be only the 
     minimum necessary to accomplish orderly termination:
       Administrative Conference of the United States;
       Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (except 
     that activities to carry out the provisions of Public Law 
     104-4 may continue);
       Interstate Commerce Commission;
       Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation;
       Land and Water Conservation Fund, State Assistance; and
       Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Rural 
     Abandoned Mine Program.

                                TITLE II

     SEC. 201. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR PARCHMENT PRINTING.

       (a) Waiver.--The provisions of sections 106 and 107 of 
     title 1, United States Code, are waived with respect to the 
     printing (on parchment or otherwise) of the enrollment of any 
     of the following measures of the first session of the One 
     Hundred Fourth Congress presented to the President after the 
     enactment of this joint resolution:
       (1) A continuing resolution.
       (2) A debt limit extension measure.

[[Page H 11893]]

       (3) A reconciliation bill.
       (b) Certification by Committee on House Oversight.--The 
     enrollment of a measure to which subsection (a) applies shall 
     be in such form as the Committee on House Oversight of the 
     House of Representatives certifies to be a true enrollment.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this joint resolution:
       (1) Continuing resolution.--The term ``continuing 
     resolution'' means a bill or joint resolution that includes 
     provisions making further continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 1996.
       (2) Debt limit extension measure.--The term ``debt limit 
     extension measure'' means a bill or joint resolution that 
     includes provisions increasing or waiving (for a temporary 
     period or otherwise) the public debt limit under section 
     3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
       (3) Reconciliation bill.--The term ``reconciliation bill'' 
     means a bill that is a reconciliation bill within the meaning 
     of section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                               TITLE III

                 TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED POLITICAL ADVOCACY


   prohibition on subsidizing political advocacy with taxpayer funds

       Sec. 301. (a) Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the following limitations shall apply to 
     any taxpayer subsidized grant that is made from funds 
     appropriated under this or any other Act or controlled under 
     any congressional authorization, until the enactment of 
     specific exceptions in subsequent Acts:
       (1) No taxpayer subsidized grantee may use funds from any 
     taxpayer subsidized grant to engage in political advocacy.
       (2) No person or organization may transfer funds from any 
     taxpayer subsidized grant, in whole or in part, in the form 
     of a taxpayer subsidized grant, to any person or organization 
     that under this subsection would not be eligible to receive 
     such funds directly from the Federal Government.
       (3) No taxpayer subsidized grantee may use funds from any 
     taxpayer subsidized grant for any purpose (including but not 
     limited to extending subsequent taxpayer subsidized grants to 
     any other individual or organization) other than to purchase 
     or secure goods or services, except as permitted by Congress 
     in the law authorizing the taxpayer subsidized grant.
       (4) No restrictions are placed upon the use of an 
     individual's non-Federal funds by this title.
       (5) An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engaged in lobbying 
     activities during the organization's previous taxable year 
     shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds 
     constituting a taxpayer subsidized grant. This paragraph 
     shall not apply to organizations described in such section 
     501(c)(4) with gross annual revenues of less than $3,000,000 
     in such previous taxable year, including the amounts of 
     Federal funds received as a taxpayer subsidized grant.
       (6) An organization shall not be eligible for the receipt 
     of Federal funds constituting a taxpayer subsidized grant if, 
     in the previous Federal fiscal year, such organization--
       (A) received more than one-third of its annual revenue in 
     the form of taxpayer subsidized grants; and
       (B) expended on lobbying activities an amount equal to or 
     exceeding whichever of the following amounts is less:
       (i) $100,000; or
       (ii) the amount determined by the formula set forth in 
     paragraph (7)(B).
       (7) No taxpayer subsidized grant applicant or taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee, except an individual person, may receive 
     any taxpayer subsidized grant if its expenditures for 
     political advocacy for any one of the previous five Federal 
     fiscal years exceeded its substantial political advocacy 
     threshold. For purposes of the application of this paragraph 
     in the five-year period following the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, only the previous Federal fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 1995, shall be considered. For purposes 
     of this title, the substantial political advocacy threshold 
     for a given Federal fiscal year shall be whichever of the 
     following amounts is less:
       (A) $1,000,000.
       (B) The amount determined by the following formula:
       (i) Calculate the difference between the taxpayer 
     subsidized grant applicant's total expenditures made in a 
     given Federal fiscal year and the total taxpayer subsidized 
     grants it received in that Federal fiscal year.
       (ii) For the first $500,000 of the amount calculated under 
     clause (i), multiply by 0.20.
       (iii) For the portion of the amount calculated under clause 
     (i) that is more than $500,000, but not more than $1,000,000, 
     multiply by 0.15.
       (iv) For the portion of the amount calculated under clause 
     (i) that is more than $1,000,000, but not more than 
     $1,500,000, multiply by 0.10.
       (v) For the portion of the amount calculated under clause 
     (i) that is more than $1,500,000, but not more than 
     $17,000,000, multiply by 0.05.
       (vi) Calculate the sum of the products described in clauses 
     (ii) through (v).
       (8) During any one Federal fiscal year in which a taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee, except an individual person, has 
     possession, custody or control of taxpayer subsidized grant 
     funds, such taxpayer subsidized grantee shall not use any 
     funds (whether derived from taxpayer subsidized grants or 
     otherwise) to engage in political advocacy in excess of its 
     substantial political advocacy threshold for the prior 
     Federal fiscal year.
       (9) No taxpayer subsidized grantee may use funds from any 
     taxpayer subsidized grant to purchase or secure any goods or 
     services (including dues and membership fees) from any other 
     organization whose expenditures for political advocacy for 
     the previous Federal fiscal year exceeded whichever of the 
     following amounts is greater:
       (A) $25,000.
       (B) 15 percent of such other organization's total 
     expenditures for such previous Federal fiscal year.
       (10) The limitations imposed by paragraphs (5), (7), and 
     (8) shall not apply to any taxpayer subsidized grant 
     applicant or taxpayer subsidized grantee for any Federal 
     fiscal year if, during the preceding Federal fiscal year, its 
     total expenditures for political advocacy were less than 
     $25,000.
       (11) For purposes of applying the limitations imposed by 
     this subsection (other than paragraph (4)), the members of an 
     affiliated group of organizations (other than any member that 
     does not receive a taxpayer subsidized grant) shall be 
     treated as one organization.
       (b) Enforcement of Taxpayer Protections.--The following 
     enforcement provisions apply with respect to the limitations 
     imposed under subsection (a):
       (1) Each taxpayer subsidized grantee shall be subject to 
     audit from time to time as follows:
       (A) Audits may be requested and conducted by the General 
     Accounting Office or other auditing entity authorized by 
     Congress, including the Inspector General of the Federal 
     entity awarding or administering the taxpayer subsidized 
     grant.
       (B) Taxpayer subsidized grantees shall follow generally 
     accepted accounting principles in keeping books and records 
     relating to each taxpayer subsidized grant and no Federal 
     entity may impose more burdensome accounting requirements for 
     purposes of enforcing this title.
       (C) A taxpayer subsidized grantee that engages in political 
     advocacy shall have the burden of proving, by clear and 
     convincing evidence, that it is in compliance with the 
     limitations of this title.
       (D) Audits pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to 
     the utilization, transfer, and expenditure of Federal funds 
     and the utilization, transfer, and expenditure of any funds 
     for political advocacy.
       (2) Violations by a taxpayer subsidized grantee of the 
     limitations contained in subsection (a) may be enforced and 
     the taxpayer subsidized grant may be recovered in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as a false or fraudulent claim 
     for payment or approval made to the Federal Government 
     pursuant to sections 3729 through 3812 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Any officer or employee of the Federal Government who 
     awards or administers funds from any taxpayer subsidized 
     grant to a taxpayer subsidized grantee who is not in 
     compliance with this section shall--
       (A) for knowing or negligent noncompliance with this 
     section, be subjected to appropriate administrative 
     discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension 
     from duty without pay or removal from office; and
       (B) for knowing noncompliance with this section, pay a 
     civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each improper 
     disbursement of funds.
       (c) Duties of Taxpayer Subsidized Grantees.--Any individual 
     or organization that awards or administers a taxpayer 
     subsidized grant shall take reasonable steps to ensure that 
     the taxpayer subsidized grantee complies with the 
     requirements of this title. Reasonable steps to ensure 
     compliance shall include written notice to a taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee that it is receiving a taxpayer subsidized 
     grant, and that the provisions of this title apply to the 
     taxpayer subsidized grantee.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this title:
       (1) Affiliated Organizations.--Any two organizations shall 
     be considered to be members of an affiliated group of 
     organizations if the organizations meet any one or more of 
     the following criteria:
       (A) The governing instrument of one such organization 
     requires it to be bound by decisions of the other 
     organization on legislative issues.
       (B) The governing board of one such organization includes 
     persons who--
       (i) are specifically designated representatives of the 
     other such organization or are members of the governing 
     board, officers, or paid executive staff members of such 
     other organization; and
       (ii) by aggregating their votes, have sufficient voting 
     power to cause or prevent action on political advocacy issues 
     by the other such organization.
       (C) The organizations--
       (i) either use the same name or trademark, or represent 
     themselves as being affiliated; and
       (ii) coordinate their lobbying activities or political 
     advocacy.
       (2) Agency action.--The term ``agency action'' includes the 
     definition contained in section 551 of title 5, United States 
     Code, and 

[[Page H 11894]]
     includes action by State, local, or tribal government agencies. Such 
     term does not include any agency's action that grants an 
     approval, license, permit, registration, or similar 
     authority, or that grants or recognizes an exemption or 
     relieves a restriction, on a case-by-case basis.
       (3) Agency proceeding.--The term ``agency proceeding'' 
     includes the definition contained in section 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and includes proceedings by State, local, 
     or tribal government agencies.
       (4) Influence legislation or agency action.--
       (A) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the term ``influence legislation or agency 
     action'' includes--
       (i) any attempt to influence any legislation or agency 
     action through an attempt to affect the opinions of the 
     general public or any segment thereof; and
       (ii) any attempt to influence any legislation or agency 
     action through communication with any member or employee of a 
     legislative body or agency, or with any government official 
     or employee who may participate in the formulation of the 
     legislation or agency action.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``influence legislation or agency 
     action'' does not include--
       (i) making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, 
     study, research, or debate;
       (ii) providing technical advice or assistance (where such 
     advice would otherwise constitute the influencing of 
     legislation or agency action) to a governmental body or to a 
     committee or other subdivision thereof in response to a 
     request by such body or subdivision, as the case may be;
       (iii) communications between the taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee and its bona fide members with respect to 
     legislation, proposed legislation, agency action, or proposed 
     agency action of direct interest to the taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee and such members, other than communications described 
     in subparagraph (C);
       (iv) any communication with a governmental official or 
     employee, including any such communication required to apply 
     for, administer, or execute a taxpayer subsidized grant; 
     other than--

       (I) a communication with a member or employee of a 
     legislative body or agency (where such communication would 
     otherwise constitute the influencing of legislation or agency 
     action); or
       (II) a communication the principal purpose of which is to 
     influence legislation or agency action;

       (v) official communications by employees of State, local, 
     or tribal governments, or by organizations whose membership 
     consists exclusively of State, local, or tribal governments; 
     and
       (vi) participating in a particular activity that is 
     specifically and explicitly directed and sanctioned by an Act 
     of Congress, and is specifically and explicitly approved in 
     the contract or other agreement under which the taxpayer 
     subsidized grant is made, except that such exception shall 
     not apply to any such contract or other agreement that is 
     first entered into after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, is renewed after such date, or is terminable or 
     amendable after such date at the option of the government 
     entity awarding or administering such grant, unless such 
     activity is specifically and explicitly directed and 
     sanctioned by an Act of Congress enacted after January 1, 
     1995.
       (C) Communications with members.--
       (i) A communication between a taxpayer subsidized grantee 
     and any bona fide member of such organization to directly 
     encourage such member to communicate as provided in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be treated as a subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) communication by the taxpayer subsidized grantee 
     itself.
       (ii) A communication between a taxpayer subsidized grantee 
     and any bona fide member of such organization to directly 
     encourage such member to urge persons other than members to 
     communicate as provided in either clause (i) or (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A) shall be treated as a communication 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i).
       (5) Legislation.--The term ``legislation'' includes the 
     introduction, amendment, enactment, passage, defeat, 
     ratification, or repeal of Acts, bills, resolutions, 
     treaties, declarations, confirmations, articles of 
     impeachment, or similar items by the Congress, any State 
     legislature, any local or tribal council or similar governing 
     body, or by the public in a referendum, initiative, 
     constitutional amendment, recall, confirmation, or similar 
     procedure.
       (6) Lobbying activities.--The term ``lobbying activities'' 
     means political advocacy (as defined in paragraph (8)), other 
     than political advocacy relating to any judicial litigation 
     or agency proceeding described in subparagraph (C) of such 
     paragraph.
       (7) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means a legal 
     entity, other than a government, established or organized for 
     any purpose, and includes a corporation, company, 
     association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, 
     foundation, institution, society, union, or any other 
     association of persons that operates in or the activities of 
     which affect interstate or foreign commerce.
       (8) Political advocacy.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     paragraph (4)(B), the term ``political advocacy'' includes--
       (A) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to 
     influence legislation or agency action, including, but not 
     limited to, monetary or in-kind contributions, preparation 
     and planning activities, research and other background work, 
     endorsements, publicity, coordination with such activities of 
     others, and similar activities;
       (B) participating or intervening in (including the 
     publishing or distributing of statements) any political 
     campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for 
     public office, including, but not limited to, monetary or in-
     kind contributions, preparation and planning activities, 
     research and other background work, endorsements, publicity, 
     coordination with such activities of others, and similar 
     activities;
       (C) participating in any judicial litigation or agency 
     proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or 
     instrumentalities of Federal, State, local, or tribal 
     governments are parties, other than litigation in which the 
     taxpayer subsidized grantee or taxpayer subsidized grant 
     applicant is a defendant appearing in its own behalf; is 
     defending its tax-exempt status; or is challenging a 
     government decision or action directed specifically at the 
     powers, rights, or duties of that taxpayer subsidized grantee 
     or taxpayer subsidized grant applicant; and
       (D) allocating, disbursing, or contributing any monetary or 
     in-kind support to any organization whose expenditures for 
     political advocacy for the previous Federal fiscal year 
     exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures for that 
     Federal fiscal year.
       (9) Taxpayer subsidized grant.--The term ``taxpayer 
     subsidized grant'' includes the provision of any Federal 
     funds, appropriated under this or any other Act, or other 
     thing of value to carry out a public purpose of the United 
     States, except the following: the provision of funds for 
     acquisition (by purchase, lease or barter) of property or 
     services for the direct benefit or use of the United States; 
     the payments of loans, debts, or entitlements; the provision 
     of funds to or distribution of funds by an Article I or III 
     court; nonmonetary assistance provided by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to organizations approved or recognized 
     under section 5902 of title 38, United States Code; and the 
     provision of grant and scholarship funds to students for 
     educational purposes.
       (10) Taxpayer subsidized grantee.--The term ``taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee'' includes any recipient of any taxpayer 
     subsidized grant. The term shall not include any State, 
     local, or tribal government, but shall include any recipient 
     receiving a taxpayer subsidized grant from a State, local, or 
     tribal government.


                        disclosure requirements

       Sec. 302. (a) In General.--Not later than December 31 of 
     each year, each taxpayer subsidized grantee, except an 
     individual person, shall provide (via either electronic or 
     paper medium) to each Federal entity that awarded or 
     administered its taxpayer subsidized grant an annual report 
     for the prior Federal fiscal year, certified by the taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee's chief executive officer or equivalent 
     person of authority, and setting forth--
       (1) the taxpayer subsidized grantee's name and grantee 
     identification number;
       (2) a statement that the taxpayer subsidized grantee agrees 
     that it is, and shall continue to be, contractually bound by 
     the terms of this title as a condition of the continued 
     receipt and use of Federal funds; and
       (3) either--
       (A) a statement that the taxpayer subsidized grantee did 
     not engage in political advocacy; or
       (B) a statement that the taxpayer subsidized grantee did 
     engage in political advocacy, and setting forth for each 
     taxpayer subsidized grant--
       (i) the taxpayer subsidized grant identification number;
       (ii) the amount or value of the taxpayer subsidized grant 
     (including all administrative and overhead costs awarded);
       (iii) a brief description of the purpose or purposes for 
     which the taxpayer subsidized grant was awarded;
       (iv) the identity of each Federal, State, local, and tribal 
     government entity awarding or administering the taxpayer 
     subsidized grant, and program thereunder;
       (v) the name and taxpayer subsidized grantee identification 
     number of each individual or organization to which the 
     taxpayer subsidized grantee made a taxpayer subsidized grant;
       (vi) a brief description of the taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee's political advocacy, and a good faith estimate of 
     the taxpayer subsidized grantee's expenditures on political 
     advocacy; and
       (vii) a good faith estimate of the taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee's substantial political advocacy threshold.
       (b) OMB Coordination.--The Office of Management and Budget 
     shall develop by regulation one standardized form for the 
     annual report that shall be accepted by every Federal entity, 
     and a uniform procedure by which each taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee is assigned one permanent and unique taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee identification number.


                         federal entity report

       Sec. 303. Not later than May 1 of each calendar year, each 
     Federal entity awarding or administering a taxpayer 
     subsidized grant shall submit to the Bureau of the Census a 
     report (standardized by the Office of Management and Budget) 
     setting forth the information provided to such Federal entity 
     by each taxpayer subsidized grantee during the preceding 
     Federal fiscal year, and the name and taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee identification number of each taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee to which it provided written notice under 

[[Page H 11895]]
     section 301(c). The Bureau of the Census shall make this database 
     available to the public through the Internet.


                         public accountability

       Sec. 304. (a) Public Availability of Taxpayer Subsidized 
     Grant Documents.--Any Federal entity awarding a taxpayer 
     subsidized grant shall make publicly available any taxpayer 
     subsidized grant application, audit of a taxpayer subsidized 
     grantee, list of taxpayer subsidized grantees to which notice 
     was provided under section 301(c), annual report of a 
     taxpayer subsidized grantee, and that Federal entity's annual 
     report to the Bureau of the Census.
       (b) Accessibility to Public.--The public's access to the 
     documents identified in subsection (a) shall be facilitated 
     by placement of such documents in the Federal entity's public 
     document reading room and also by expediting any requests 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the Freedom 
     of Information Act as amended, ahead of any requests for 
     other information pending at such Federal entity.
       (c) Withholding Prohibited.--Records described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be subject to withholding, except 
     under the exemption set forth in subsection (b)(7)(A) of 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Fees Prohibited.--No fees for searching for or copying 
     such documents shall be charged to the public.


                              severability

       Sec. 305. If any provision of this title or the application 
     thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 
     remainder of this title and the application of such provision 
     to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected 
     thereby.


                    first amendment rights preserved

       Sec. 306. Nothing in this title shall be deemed to abridge 
     any rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United 
     States Constitution, including freedom of speech, or of the 
     press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and 
     to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


         expedited consideration and appeal of certain actions

       Sec. 307. (a) District Court Consideration.--Any action 
     challenging the constitutionality of this title shall be 
     heard and determined by a panel of three judges in accordance 
     with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. The United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have 
     exclusive jurisdiction over such action, without regard to 
     the sum or value of the matter in controversy. It shall be 
     the duty of the district court to advance on the docket, and 
     to expedite the disposition of, any action brought under this 
     subsection.
       (b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--An appeal may be taken 
     directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any 
     interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order entered in 
     any action brought under subsection (a). Any such appeal 
     shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 20 days 
     after such judgment, decree, or order is entered. The Supreme 
     Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question 
     presented by such appeal, accept jurisdiction over the 
     appeal, advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the 
     appeal.


                        construction and effect

       Sec. 308. Nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     affect the application of the internal revenue laws of the 
     United States.

                           TITLE IV--MEDICARE

     SEC. 401. DETERMINATION OF MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM.

       (a) Any percentage reference in subsection (e)(1)(A) of 
     section 1839 of the Social Security Act for months in 1996 is 
     deemed a reference to the amount described in subsection 
     (e)(1)(B)(v) of such section, expressed as a percentage of 
     the monthly actuarial rate under subsection (a)(1) of such 
     section for months in 1995.

     SEC. 402. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF CERTAIN ANTI-CANCER DRUG 
                   TREATMENTS.

       (a) Coverage of Certain Self-Administered Anticancer 
     Drugs.--Section 1861(s)(2)(Q) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(Q)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(Q)'' and inserting ``(Q)(i)''; and
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``, 
     and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) an oral drug (which is approved by the Federal Food 
     and Drug Administration) prescribed for use as an anticancer 
     nonsteroidal antiestrogen or nonsteroidal antiandrogen agent 
     for a given indication;''.
       (b) Uniform Coverage of Anticancer Drugs in All Settings.--
     Section 1861(t)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(t)(2)(A)) 
     is amended by adding (including a nonsteroidal antiestrogen 
     or nonsteroidal antiandrogen regimen)'' after ``regimen''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1834 (j)(5)(F)(iv) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(j)(5)(F)(iv)) is amended by 
     striking ``prescribed for use'' and all that follows through 
     ``1861 (s)(2)(Q))'' and inserting ``described in section 
     1861(s)(2)(Q)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act

  .The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].


                             general leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which, to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Joint Resolution 115, and that I may include tabular 
and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the House 
this joint resolution that would provide authority for most of the 
government to continue operations beyond November 13, the date the 
current continuing resolution expires.
  The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are continuing to 
work on the remaining regular funding bills in a manner that will allow 
us to present them to the President for his signature in the coming 
days. However, it is clear that many of the budget decisions will 
extend past November 13. Therefore, we need to continue to provide 
spending authority for those portions of the Government which are not 
covered by signed bills.
  The following are key elements of the resolution before us: The 
resolution continues Government funding through December 1 or whenever 
a regular bill is enacted into law, whichever is sooner. The resolution 
provides temporary funding for the programs covered under 11 bills. 
Since two bills have been signed into law, military construction and 
agriculture, they have been omitted from this resolution.
  All the projects and activities in the remaining 11 bills operate 
under a restrictive formula that provides rates that do not exceed the 
lower of the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill, or the fiscal 
year 1995 current level. The resolution provides that for programs that 
are proposed for termination in either the House or Senate version of 
the regular bill or are significantly reduced in these bills, they may 
continue, but at a minimum level not to exceed 60 percent of the 
current rate of operations. This is down from the 90 percent level 
provided for in the first continuing resolution.

  All programs continued will be under the fiscal year 1995 terms and 
conditions.
  This resolution contains the ``no furlough'' language that was 
contained in the first resolution. Early year distributions for 
programs that have historical high initial fund distributions are 
prohibited. This resolution contains the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh 
language regarding political advocacy, and no new initiatives can be 
started under the terms of this bill.
  Section 123 of the resolution provides for the orderly termination of 
six specific Federal programs, which include the Administrative 
Conference of the United States, the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the State Assistance 
Grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Rural 
Abandoned Mine Program. These are in addition to the elimination of the 
Office of Technology Assessment as well as the downsizing of the Bureau 
of Mines, which were contained in the first CR and included in this 
version as well.
  There are two additional items that are in this resolution that are 
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we heard 
them discussed during the debate on the rule. They deal with Medicare 
part B and funding for breast cancer treatment.
   Mr. Speaker, this second continuing resolution maintains the 4 
principles that we have used when we developed the first continuing 
resolution. In fact, this resolution provides funding at levels that 
are below the section 602 allocation provided for in the budget 
resolution. This is our part of the glide path to get us to a balanced 
budget by the year 2002. It prevents costly government furloughs and 
inappropriate 

[[Page H 11896]]
program terminations, and it does not prejudice funding decisions for 
the remainder of the appropriations bills except for a limited number 
of program terminations that are agreed to by the President.

  Finally, it provides a climate that is an incentive for all involved 
to conclude action on the regular appropriations bills. This is because 
as we move appropriations conference agreements and as the 
appropriations bills are signed into law by the President, all of the 
programs and agencies and departments contained within the jurisdiction 
of those appropriations bills are taken off the table and they are no 
longer subject to the terms and conditions of this restrictive 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this second continuing resolution is necessary to keep a 
large part of the government operating for a very short period of time. 
It is restrictive, and it will keep the necessary pressure on both the 
Congress and the President to work out our differences on the remaining 
regular bills and get them enacted into law, and I urge the adoption of 
the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, about 5 weeks ago when we had neared the end of the 
fiscal year, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and I 
brought to the House a bipartisan proposal which had been worked out 
with the leadership of both parties in both houses, as well as the 
White House, which extended the business of the Government so that the 
Congress could complete its work. That was made necessary because, for 
the first hundred days of this session, the majority party proceeded 
with its so-called contract, and that meant that, in contrast to the 
previous year when we had finished all 13 of our appropriation bills 
before the end of the fiscal year, the Congress was left with an 
immense amount of work yet to be done, and we worked out a bipartisan 
way to keep the Government going so that innocent people would not be 
hurt.

                              {time}  1830

  Now we are in need of a new extension, and the majority is proposing 
that we extend this conference report to the December 1. I think this 
is a big mistake, because this resolution, instead of building bridges 
and trying to overcome differences, it exacerbates the differences, it 
widens them and it puts everyone further apart, because it is a much 
more confrontational document. it is as though it were designed to 
fail.
  It provides a 30-percent clobbering of programs such as low-income 
heating assistance, veterans benefits, some education items. It 
contains the controversial Istook language which would tie up every 
major charity in the country in red tape. It appears designed to 
ratchet up pressure on the President, because people are unhappy that 
the President has not signed bills which have not yet been sent to him.
  We are now 11 percent into the fiscal year, and we have exactly 11 
percent of this year's fiscal budget passed. We have two bills here, 
military construction and agriculture, which have crossed the finish 
line, represented by this red line, and they have been signed into law. 
Two others have crossed the legislative finish line. They are awaiting 
the President's signature at the White House, and it is my 
understanding they are going to be signed.
  The leaves us with nine remaining horses that have yet to cross the 
finish line in the appropriations process. Now, those are not lagging 
behind because the President would not sign the bills. They are lagging 
behind because the Congress did not get its work done.
  For instance, we have the Treasury-Post Office bill here, hung up by 
the same Istook language which is being placed in the continuing 
resolution. It is the Republican majority in the Senate which is 
refusing to accept the Republican majority language in the House on the 
Istook amendment. It is not the President.
  The Interior Department, that appropriation bill is stuck in the 
Congress because we still do not have agreement between the two houses 
on extraneous legislative language that has nothing whatsoever to do 
with dollars in the bill.
  The foreign operations bill went through both houses of Congress, but 
it is hung up because there is a difference between the Republicans in 
the House and the Republicans in the Senate on the issue of abortion 
and the Mexico City language. The VA-HUD and Commerce conferences have 
yet to meet.

  The Defense conference has not met in some 3 weeks since its original 
product was voted down on the floor of this House. The President did 
not beat that bill. This House did.
  The Labor-HEW appropriation bill, passed by the House, was so extreme 
that the Republican-controlled Senate will not even take the bill up.
  So that is why 89 percent of our appropriations work is still not 
completed, far short of the finish line. Yet, instead of trying to 
recognize that this is a congressional failure, instead we have an 
effort to ratchet up the heat on the President because people are 
frustrated by the fact that the Congress itself has not been able to do 
its work. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  In addition, we have another problem. This continuing resolution 
would extend the Government's ability to function for the remainder of 
November, down to December 1. It will have taken us from November 6 
through about November 13 to get this done.
  Now, you would think this would give us enough time to get our work 
done. But there is a little problem. That little problem is that 
Congress is scheduled to be out during these days, so the congressional 
recess cuts a huge hole in the extension provided under the continuing 
resolution.
  There will be only 6 days in which the Congress can complete action 
on nine of the appropriation bills, if you take the 3 days before we go 
out next week and the 3 days afterward.
  Does anybody really believe that the majority party is going to make 
enough progress in resolving the fights within their own caucus to 
complete action on these appropriation bills during that period of 
time? I do not know anyone that really believes that is going to 
happen.
  So, we are going to be forced to be back here with yet another 
resolution. That makes no sense. We ought to be able to focus our 
energies on passing the appropriation bills that have not yet passed, 
rather than having to work 5 or 6 days to simply pass another 
continuing resolution because this one is so short it does not really 
mean anything.
  I would simply suggest that we do not have to raise Medicare premiums 
in order to deal with this problem. You do not have to add the 
inflammatory Istook language, which we know the Republican majority in 
the Senate will not swallow. You do not need to widen the differences 
between people in this building.

  We ought to be trying to bridge those differences and close those 
gaps in opinions. We ought to be trying to sit down and work out 
another simple extension.
  That is why in my motion to recommit I will offer that. I will offer 
a simple 1-month extension without any additional bells and whistles, 
without any ideological gimmicks, just a simple, straight, neutral 
extension for 1 month so that we do have a realistic timeframe during 
which the majority party can resolve its intra-party differences, and 
we can also, in the process, send more of these bills down to the 
President so that we have a chance of closing out the appropriations 
cycle before we deal with the reconciliation matter, which is still 
likely to tie up the Government for a good long time.
  I urge you to accept that recommit motion and not to go down this 
road.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 115 because it is 
the right thing to do. We have all heard the pleas from men and women 
who have said keep our Government alive and well.
  Beyond keeping our Government alive, it will help keep our Nation's 
men and women alive. Under this resolution we are expanding Medicare 
coverage to include oral hormonal drugs 

[[Page H 11897]]
for treating breast and prostate cancer. For too long, Medicare has not 
paid for drugs like Tamoxifen, which are effective in treating breast 
cancer and are cost efficient. In fact, preliminary estimates show that 
oral cancer treatments for breast cancer could save up to $156 million 
over the next 7 years.
  This is a win-win situation for the men and women in our country and 
a win-win situation for the American taxpayer. It is time to respect 
the men and women of our Nation and vote for this continuing 
resolution. American lives depend on it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we do not fall for the smokescreen which suggests 
that we have to pass this continuing resolution in order to take care 
of the breast cancer problems and the prostate cancer problems cited in 
the debate today. In my view, those are simply here in order to cover 
the tracks of people who are intending at the same moment to raise 
Medicare premiums by $9 or more a month.
  If you want to deal with the prostate cancer and breast cancer 
problems that are dealt with in the continuing resolution, it is very 
simple. You can put this bill, which I will introduce today, on the 
suspension calendar. You can pass it in 20 minutes and send it to the 
other body, and you can resolve those problems without going this 
charade, which in my view is designed to cover the fact that those who 
vote for this resolution today are really simply trying to raise 
Medicare premiums by $9 or more per month.
  I invite anyone in the House who would like to cosponsor this measure 
with me to put their names on the bill before I introduce it this 
afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution, of course, is important to 
enable the Government to remain in business with the things that means 
to many people, but I am glad to say it does not mean business as 
usual; that the language in the legislation that is compromise language 
between proponents in the House and the Senate is in the bill to try to 
stop the problem of those who have an iron grip on what they believe is 
their vested right to take the taxpayers' money and use it for their 
own political lobbying activities.
  The provisions in this bill have been much talked about; and, 
frankly, most of the things that I have heard from those opposing it 
are outlandish and outrageous and simply not true.
  No one, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made this explicit, no one has 
a vested right to get gifts and handouts and subsidies from the 
taxpayers so that they can use that to assist them in lobbying 
activities. In fact, in a case in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court said, 
``Congress is not required by the first amendment to subsidize 
lobbying.'' It is that simple, Mr. Speaker.
  Groups that choose, that make a voluntary decision to come to 
Washington with their hands out asking for millions and millions and 
millions of dollars in grants from the Federal Government should expect 
that they should not have their money either directly or indirectly 
applied to lobbying or political advocacy activities.
  Ninety percent of the charities in this country, Mr. Speaker, 90 
percent of them, are exempted from this provision because they are not 
engaged in heavy-duty lobbying activity. But for those which are, still 
this does not prevent them from speaking out. It does not prevent them 
from voicing their concerns. It merely says if they want taxpayer 
subsidies, then there is a limitation on the amount that they can spend 
for lobbying activities.
  That is it. That is all. It is straightforward. It is direct. It is 
what the U.S. Supreme Court has said. Congress is not required by the 
first amendment to subsidize lobbying. If groups want to operate 
without taxpayer money, there is no restriction on them whatsoever. But 
the moment that they come asking for a grant, for a handout from the 
Federal Government, then we merely ask them to comply with some 
commonsense limitations on what they do with it.
  I certainly encourage support for this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion about keeping our government 
alive by the gentlewoman from Nevada who chairs one of our 
subcommittees. The gentlewoman is right. That is what this is intended 
to do.
  At the beginning of this Congress and throughout the course of this 
Congress, we have had a discussion about the Contract With America. Two 
of the first three items in the contract talk about responsibility, 
fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I suggest that every 
Member of this House ought to reject this continuing resolution, 
because I suggest to you it is fiscally irresponsible and personally 
irresponsible.
  Now, why do I say that? Historically, both sides of the aisle have 
agreed that when the Congress could not accomplish its work in a timely 
fashion that it then should keep the Government running, because no one 
in this Congress or in this country intends to shut down all of 
government. They may not want all of it, but they do not intend to shut 
it down. Therefore, as a result of us not doing our work, we pass a 
continuing resolution which says we want the government to continue.
  Usually, we agree that it ought to be a clean CR. What does that 
mean? That means that there should not be extraneous, non-
appropriation, additional matters added to that continuing resolution. 
Why? Because all we are saying is we have not done our work. 
Government, you stay in operation at a certain level, 90 percent below 
what you did last year or some figure as that, while we continue in the 
democratic political process to debate the issues, to contend with one 
another as to our priorities, to level the funding and to matters that 
ought to be included in those bills.

                              {time}  1845

  Now, the fact of the matter is the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook], who just spoke about his amendment, speaks of it as an 
amendment that, gee, just ought to be done because we are giving 
taxpayers' money to lobbyists. That is not true, of course. That is a 
crime if they use money that the Federal Government gives them to lobby 
the government.
  The chairman, the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is a former prosecutor. I suggested that he 
bring to the attention of the appropriate U.S. Attorney any instances 
that he knew of where that was occurring. To my knowledge that has not 
yet been done.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of this committee, the same gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], said some months ago we ought not to put 
extraneous legislative matters on appropriation bills. We ought not to 
put these on. Why did he say that? Because he thought that would impede 
the legislative process, and, indeed, it has.
  There is only one Republican on the conference committee that agrees 
with the Istook-Ehrlich amendment. Forget about the Democrats. They do 
not have a majority of their own party in the Senate on this amendment. 
And the Republican leadership knows that the President has said he will 
veto this bill if this is attached.

  This is a blatant irresponsible attempt to bulldoze the President of 
the United States into signing something that he vigorously disagrees 
with, and he will not do it, but that does not seem to matter. The 
Treasury-Postal bill has been pending, ladies and gentlemen, for 50-
plus days, and the President says he will sign it, but the Republicans 
cannot agree on the Istook amendment so it has not been added.
  As a result, Mr. Speaker, the Treasury-Postal bill sits stuck in the 
mud of political partisanship. That is unfortunate. I do not think my 
chairman wants that to happen. I will not ask him to comment on that. 
If we want to be fiscally responsible and personally responsible, we 
will adopt the Obey legislation, which says pending our getting our 
work done in the Congress of 

[[Page H 11898]]
the United States we will pass a clean continuing resolution to make 
sure the government continues to operate. I urge my colleagues to 
follow that responsible path.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds so that I 
might point out to the gentleman that if this bill passes, and it 
passes the Senate, the gentleman will get his Treasury-Postal bill 
right away because the Istook amendment will no longer be a problem.
  Mr. HOYER. A small advantage, but not enough.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the continuing 
resolution, and I admit I am a freshman, but I cannot help but be 
amazed at what I am hearing here tonight. I am hearing that the 
Republicans are being irresponsible because we do not have these bills 
to the President already, while I have heard that there are two 
separate years while the other side was in control that we operated on 
a continuing resolution for an entire year, and that happened twice.
  I do not understand why they are so worried that we are not going to 
get our work done. We are certain we are going to get our work done. We 
are offering this continuing resolution because we want the Government 
to stay in business. We do not want the lives of the employees, the 
Federal employees, to be turned upside down, not to mention that of the 
recipients.
  Mr. Speaker, another thing I have heard tonight, and I really just 
cannot believe I heard it right, is that we have to dismiss the issue 
of breast cancer and we have to dismiss the issue of prostate cancer as 
smoking mirrors; that it is not important. Well, I want to tell my 
colleagues something, Mr. Speaker. It is important to me. My aunt died 
of breast cancer. I have five friends who have died of breast cancer. 
And in this continuing resolution we are offering Tamoxifen, an oral 
anti-cancer drug, for women to be able to take. It works in about 50 
percent of the breast cancer cases.
  Again, I am absolutely appalled that we cannot consider this issue 
any time. It has already been told to us tonight that it will save $156 
million. It will save lives. There is a statistic I would like to point 
out to Members, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is very startling and it 
will open everyone's eyes. In the 12 years of the Vietnam war about 
58,000 Americans died. During those same 12 years 426,000 women died of 
breast cancer and nobody noticed. 426,000.
  I do not care what bill we offer this cancer drug on. I am going to 
support it. It is important. We are not trying to twist the President's 
arm. Karen Curtis, Trudy Wilson, Freda McCoy, Barbara Clare, and Chris 
Linn, my friends who are dead from breast cancer and their families, 
would all want us to support this so that we can offer this life saving 
drug to patients of breast cancer that are now on Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this continuing resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is but the 
latest manifestation of the Republican Congress' all-out assault on 
Medicare. It will raise Medicare part B premiums on America's seniors 
by over $150 in 1996. Some politicians may not think that is a whole 
lot of money. Let me tell you, to people living on fixed incomes, that 
is a lot of money. For some older Americans, these cuts may mean 
choosing between medicine and food. I think that's wrong.
  But I am not the only one alarmed by the radical agenda the 
Republican majority is ramming through this House. As Republican David 
Gergen observed in this week's U.S. News & World Report, ``Congress now 
seems intent on imposing new burdens upon the poor, the elderly and 
vulnerable children while, incredibly, delivering a windfall for the 
wealthy.'' This extreme agenda goes too far, and the American people 
know it.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to reject this latest raid on 
Medicare to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Vote against this 
radical agenda. Vote against this continuing resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I take the well only to try to keep some 
semblance of factualness to the discussion that we have here. That is 
the second or third Member of the minority party that has taken the 
well and said that we will increase the cost on seniors on the part B 
premium in the continuing resolution. Somebody has to get a calculator.
  First of all, at a 25-percent premium under the President's program, 
the cost in 1995, $46. Current program, under our program, $46. What 
this does is increase it to $53.
  Now, during the rule I went into the explanation that the seniors 
have agreed that keeping the premium where it is is a reasonable share 
of the seniors' responsibility in trying to fix Medicare. AARP 
testified in front of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Health of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, that that was a reasonable compromise. 
They are not opposed to what we are doing.
  If we take a look at what the President proposed at a 25-percent 
premium, that 1996 figure, President Clinton's fiscal year 1996 budget 
submission on page 108 would make the difference $9. I do not care how 
many times you multiply 12 times 9, it does not come out $150.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is wrong. Those who 
have used that figure before are wrong. It is not my inclination to 
come to this well every time they misstate or try to create the 
impression different than what is in this bill. If that were the case, 
unfortunately, I would be on the floor every other speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, under current law the part B premium would 
drop from $46 to $24.50. That is an increase of $11 per month under 
current law. If we multiply that by 12 months, it is a $132 increase 
that seniors will be faced with come January. It is a New Year's 
present for the seniors in this country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand all the continuing 
resolutions when the Republicans were in the minority and I would like 
to submit it for the Record. CR, after CR, after CR involved a tactic 
of spinning their will, and I want to submit this for the Record.
  The information referred to follows:

         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
           Committee on Appropriations,
                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: From 1977 to 1987, it was common practice 
     to include entire appropriations bills in full-year 
     continuing resolutions. Listed below (by calendar and fiscal 
     years) are those bills carried in continuing resolutions for 
     the full year:
       Calendar year 1977 for fiscal year 1978--1 bill--Labor-HEW.
       Calendar year 1978 for fiscal year 1979--1 bill--Energy and 
     Water.
       Calendar year 1979 for fiscal year 1980--3 bills--Foreign 
     Operations; Labor-HHS; and Legislative.
       Calendar year 1980 for fiscal year 1981--4 bills--Labor-
     HHS; Legislative, Commerce-Justice; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1981 for fiscal year 1982--4 bills--Commerce-
     Justice; Labor-HHS; Legislative; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1982 for fiscal year 1983--6 bills--Commerce-
     Justice; Energy and Water; Foreign Operations; Labor-HHS; 
     Legislative; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1983 for fiscal year 1984--3 bills--
     Agriculture; Foreign Operations; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1984 for fiscal year 1985--8 bills--
     Agriculture; Defense; District of Columbia; Foreign 
     Operations; Interior, Military Construction; Transportation; 
     and Treasury-Postal.

[[Page H 11899]]

       Calendar year 1985 for fiscal year 1986--7 bills--
     Agriculture; Defense; District of Columbia; Foreign 
     Operations, Interior; Transportation; and Treasury-Postal.
       Calendar year 1986 for fiscal year 1987--all 13 bills.
       Calendar year 1987 for fiscal year 1988--all 13 bills.
       Since 1988, bills have not been carried for a full year in 
     a continuing resolution except for the Foreign Operations 
     bill in fiscal year 1992. In addition to the above, in 
     calendar year 1950, 10 bills were included in the ``General 
     Appropriations Act,'' 1951. The only general bill not 
     included was the District of Columbia bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Bob Livingston,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I would truly like to work in a bipartisan way, but when 
we talk about the real smokescreens before us, the minority has fought 
tooth, hook, and nail to delay, to gridlock every single appropriations 
bill we had. They fought against every one and they want to spend and 
increase in every one except one, and, of course, that is national 
security and defense, in which the Constitution specifically says we 
are $200 billion below the bottom-up review, which is the bare bones 
minimum to fight two conflicts. And, of course, the liberal left wants 
to attack that even more.
  The real smokescreen is we want to balance the budget and have 
welfare reform, but not a single Republican or Democrat voted for the 
President's package. If we want to take a look at the real meaning of 
Medicare, we want to positively come out and seek help, but yet it is 
Mediscare because of the 1996 elections. If we want to see a 
smokescreen, we should take a look at the President, who said I raised 
taxes too much. But the liberal left said, oh, do not say that. Please 
do not say we raised taxes too much, because they increased the rate on 
the middle class with the tax rate when they said they were going to 
give a tax break for the middle class.
  They increased the tax on Social Security. They cut out the COLA of 
the military and they did everything opposite from what they promised 
that they would do. Now, we are quite on the opposite side. We are 
going to balance the budget, we are going to resolve Medicare and save 
it and preserve it. We are going to have a welfare reform package that 
helps America get off and out of slavery instead of this cruel system 
and we are going to give a tax package back to the people because their 
own President said we tax too much.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding time, and also for his leadership in putting 
together this motion to recommit, as well as his leadership on many 
other issues in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many, many reasons to vote against this 
continuing resolution and to support the sensible motion to recommit. 
But I tell my colleagues it takes my breath away to think that our 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle as they vote for the 
continuing resolution today will be voting to increase the Medicare 
part B premium that senior citizens will have to pay for Medicare 
starting January 1.
  By the admission of our colleague from California, Mr. Thomas, the 
premium will be increased at least over $100 a year. Further to that, 
this continuing resolution makes a $13-per month increase in the 
premium. How can we do that to our seniors who are living on the 
margins? How can we given a tax break to the wealthiest Americans at 
the same time as we are increasing the premiums over $100 per year 
starting January 1 for our senior citizens?
  In addition to the increase in Medicare, there is the famous redtape 
Istook amendment which places onerous regulatory burdens on Americans 
striving to exercise their right of freedom of speech to petition their 
Government. Others have spoken eloquently to that point. I point out 
that it is still present in its un-American form in this bill.

  In addition to that, it is important for our colleagues to know what 
else is cut very seriously in this legislation: Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, Goals 2000 school reform programs, the President's 
AmeriCorps National Service program, Community Development Bank 
Initiative, National Biological Survey, Advanced Technology Program, 
drug courts and crime prevention block grants.
  In addition to all of that, we are faced with this decision because 
the Republicans have not done their work. I commend our colleague for 
offering this motion to recommit as well as his anticancer-drug 
legislation.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a veteran of foreign wars and domestic, as I 
breathlessly take in some of the misstatements that were just made.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the continuing 
resolution which is before us, but I must say I do so more in sorrow 
than I do in enthusiasm.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I voted against the rule because it did 
not provide for an opportunity for my pet project, an instant replay 
proposition that would end continuing resolutions and the train-wreck 
possibilities for all time. I will try again; every time the Committee 
on Rules meets on a continuing resolution, I will try to convince them 
that we ought to have an automatic resurgence of the previous 
continuing resolution until the negotiators come up with a final 
budget, so that we will never have that lapse, that gap that comes too 
often in these negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in sorrow because as a proponent of 
increased funding for NIH, just for example, the continuing resolution 
causes gaps where everybody might agree on increased appropriations, it 
causes gaps of reduced funding because of the formulas that are being 
applied to keep the lowest common denominator of funding viable through 
the temporary periods. Thus, if it is 6 weeks or 8 weeks, the increases 
that we all agree should go to NIH are not forthcoming, thereby slowing 
down vital research in new remedies and preventive medicine for our 
populace, and thus creating an unintended danger to the fulfillment of 
our biomedical research and NIH capacities.
  This is why I will, of course, have to support the continuing 
resolution, because if we do not, we have that very same train wreck 
which I am trying to avoid by my type of legislation. So, let us go on 
with it. Let us pass this continuing resolution. I, for one, will 
continue to work for a no-train-wreck-possibility instant replay.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority is very touchy when we raise the 
Medicare part B issue, and for good reason.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like the facts to be clear. They do not need to 
be embellished. The premium is now $46.10. There is no reference in the 
law now to 31.5 percent. It works out that the $46.10 comes out at 31.5 
percent, because the costs of health care were less than expected.
  Under current law, the premium next year would go down to $42.50, 
because 25 percent is written into the law. There is no 31.5 percent. 
My Republican colleagues change current law and write into the bill 
31.5 percent. That will raise the premium to $55.10, under their 
language in the continuing resolution; under the reconciliation bill, 
$53.40. Those are the facts.
  What this is is the first step toward embodying what is in the 
Republican reconciliation bill, in the bill that has previously passed 
here, that would practically double the part B premium by the year 
2002. The estimate is $88. It is now 46.10. Those are the figures.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side are sensitive to it, 
they throw up all kinds of smoke screens, but those are the facts. They 
say, by the way, AARP supported 31.5 percent. I challenge them to find 
that anywhere. They have not done that.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming back to 
the well. We are talking about the part B premium. Is the gentleman 
aware that part B Medicare costs are escalating at a very high rate; 
10, 12 percent per year?

[[Page H 11900]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it depends what 
year we take. And the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] can argue 
whether or not they are increasing. They are. But the gentleman should 
not deny that what the gentleman and his colleagues are doing is 
raising the part B premium. They are doing that.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman wanting to obfuscate the issue, but the fact is that part B 
costs of Medicare are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The 
President's own trustees say that in their trustees report this year.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is suggesting is that in the face of 
escalating costs that are unsustainable, we drop, we reduce the 
premium. That is the very type of thinking that has gotten this Nation 
in the trouble that it is in. And so, yes, we are trying to stay at 
31.5 percent of program costs.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to further address the issue of 
ending welfare for lobbyists, which I think is a critical part of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I think the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has done an excellent job of crafting a 
temporary continuation of the current spending levels at the lowest 
levels, which will create an incentive for us to get our job done and 
for the President to step to the table and sign these bills so that we 
can go back to the American people and say that we have delivered a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the provision on ending welfare for lobbyists is 
absolutely critical to reaching that balanced budget. My very first 
weekend in office, I went back home to my district in Indiana and went 
around and held town meetings in six of the towns there. People were 
elated. This new Congress was going to keep its promises and deliver on 
the Contract With America and balance the budget.
  In the midst of that, several people came up to me and said, ``When 
you balance the budget, do everything you can to everybody's program, 
but keep my special spending program intact.'' And, unfortunately, when 
we add that one after another, it makes it impossible to make the 
spending reductions necessary to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of that type of lobbying by groups who are 
benefited from the $50 million of grants that we give out each year, it 
becomes increasingly impossible to actually deliver on our promise to 
balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, our bill is very simple. It says if person or group 
benefits from taxpayer subsidies, then we are going to ask that they 
restrict their lobbying activities to what any charity does, and limit 
the amount of money that they spend on hiring lobbyists in Washington, 
on trying to influence Congress to spend more money on their program. 
If those individuals or groups do not accept any money from the 
taxpayers, there is no gag rule, there is no limit. They can come and 
petition Congress. They can hire lobbyists. They can do whatever they 
want to further their position.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Vote to end 
welfare for lobbyists.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican majority 
is intent on continuing its crusade to lock out those without assets, 
without money, from the political process. Once again, the Istook 
amendment takes direct aim at the poorest, those with the least power 
in society, to make sure that their voices cannot be heard.
  It seems to me, from the very first day, they have made a mockery of 
their ``openness in government'' arguments. They came here arguing that 
we did not have enough open rules on the floor, and the first thing 
they did was virtually shut out all amendments. They came here 
complaining that there was not enough opportunity for hearings. They 
have moved major pieces of legislation without hearings and, in 
reality, they cannot even agree with their own majority in the other 
body to bring these bills to the President in the normal fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, worst of all, today in this bill that is ostensibly set 
up to keep the Government running, they want to sneak in the last ax to 
make sure that seniors and the poor are unable to speak on their own 
behalf. Yes, earlier in the day we protected oil companies to make sure 
they get an extra half billion dollars, and tonight we are squelching 
seniors from speaking.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], because there have been so many misstatements 
about the Medicare inclusion in this bill.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I guess we really do have to go back and 
take a look at history, because frankly it is irresponsible to pander 
to seniors, as the minority seems to need to do, without a truth-in-
packaging.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true, this year it is a $46.10 amount. That is 
because in 1990, Democrats said over the next 5 years there would be a 
fixed-dollar amount. The program, beginning in 1965, was a 50-50 split. 
In 1974, my colleagues on the other side would not do what they should 
do, and that was begin to reform the program to reflect the commitment 
of equal share.
  Mr. Speaker, they let it slide at the Social Security inflation rate 
down to a 25 percent contribution, versus a 75 percent contribution of 
government money by young people who are also paying taxes. Now, what 
they are doing is after this agreement which produces the 31.5 percent 
figure, which is the $46.10, when everybody knows the program in Part A 
is going bankrupt and the program in Part B is going sky high, they 
honestly think they can take the floor continuing to pander to seniors 
and say the way to solve the problem is to have the premium go down 
next year.
  Mr. Speaker, that is absurd. I will tell my colleagues, and I will 
repeat, all of the senior groups that came before us said: We are not 
opposed to holding the line on premiums. It makes no sense, at a time 
when we need to begin solving the problems, to go back to the old way 
my Democrat colleagues tried to maintain their majority. That is, 
pandering to seniors. That is why we are in the problem we are in 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is minimally responsible to say to the seniors we are 
going to hold the line on the premium that is their fair share of 
responsibility as we reform the program. My colleagues on the other 
side do not seem to get it. People are not buying the idea that we will 
charge them less and they can keep the program. That is why it is going 
bankrupt.
  Mr. Speaker, we are honest. We say, ``Hold the line on premiums. That 
is your fair share responsibility.'' We will restructure the rest of 
the program to let the market forces that are reducing the cost of 
health care in the private sector into the government-run program.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the continuing 
resolution and in support of the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey]. I think that all of us, particularly the new majority in 
the Congress, should try to think about our responsibility to this 
nation.
  First of all, this continuing resolution is not a continuing 
resolution. It is not going to become the law of the land. The 
President has said he is going to veto it, especially with the Istook 
amendment. It is not going to become the law. So we are going through 
motions again.
  The appropriation bills that we were blamed for by one of the 
previous speakers, that the liberal left were holding up, the truth is, 
the facts are that the Republicans have the majority. They should pass 
those bills, in that there is not a conference committee that is in the 
majority of Democrats' hands.
  You can move those bills over to the President so that we can move 
this process along. If you really want a continuing resolution, a clean 
one would in fact see the light of day and would be signed into law. 
Then the negotiations could move forward. I think that 

[[Page H 11901]]
we are going through these motions but it should be clear to all of us, 
I think it is clear to people around this country, at least the ones 
who went to the polls yesterday, that they are not buying this story. I 
would hope that we would soon--and very soon--get to the point at hand.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have 
had a lot of side debates on a lot of issues that do not belong here 
today, but the main question facing us today is whether or not we are 
going to be able to pass a new continuing resolution which keeps the 
Government going because the majority party in this Congress has been 
unable to pass 89 percent of the appropriated portion of the budget.
  They do not make that more likely by putting extraneous legislation 
in this proposal, which they know will be vetoed, which puts us on the 
path to virtually doubling Medicare premiums. What they are trying to 
do is to use this device to get this House to again endorse the 
majority party decision to virtually double Medicare premiums. We are 
not going to do that and neither is the President of the United States.
  Second, they do not make it easier to pass a continuing resolution 
when they add the Istook redtape amendment to it, which would tie up 
virtually every charity in this country in massive redtape, language 
which has already tied up one appropriation bill for 51 days. That is 
not the way you solve an immediate crisis.
  Now, the Istook amendment is masqueraded by its sponsor as being 
aimed at lobbyists. Baloney. What the Istook amendment would say to the 
Farmers Union, who we have asked to run the National Green Thumb senior 
jobs program so that we do not have to build up a bureaucracy in the 
Federal Government, what that would say to the Farmers Union is, 
``Because you are performing that service to the taxpayers, you cannot 
open your mouth to comment on what you think farm policy ought to be.''
  It also says to the National Council of Senior Citizens, who are 
being asked to run the senior aides program so we do not have to 
establish another Federal bureaucracy, they are being told: ``Sorry, if 
you are going to perform that public service, then you cannot lobby and 
tell the Congress how you feel about Medicare.'' That is authoritarian 
and it is wrong and that is why the President opposes it and why we 
oppose it.
  What we ought to be doing is very simply meeting the task before us, 
which is to find some way to bridge the differences between the Senate 
and the House and pass an extension of the budget so that we can 
continue to have some time to do our work. That is what we ought to do.
  Instead we are being asked to add a bunch of ideological bells and 
whistles which are most assuredly going to bring this package down. 
They know the Senate will not accept the Istook amendment. Their own 
party will not accept the Istook amendment. And they know that the 
President will not accept doubling the Medicare premium.
  This is not an effort to solve a problem; this is an effort to 
exacerbate it.
  We ought to reverse course before it is too late and it hurts 
innocent people.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate is coming to a close, and I think that the 
Members should understand this is a very simply bill. It is simply a 
continuing resolution to keep Government operating for up to 2 weeks 
between November 13 and December 1.
  It provides for the lowest level of funding in any particular program 
between the House, or the Senate, or fiscal year 1995 levels. For those 
programs that have been terminated or significantly reduced in either 
bill, it provides that levels can be raised to 60 percent of the amount 
that was appropriated last year. Yes, it has the Simpson-Istook-
McIntosh language, which simply says that one cannot take tax dollars 
and come back to the Congress and lobby for more tax dollars. It is a 
very simple and straightforward amendment.
  We have heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] discuss the 
Medicare part B provision. All of the hysteria on the other side is 
just a smokescreen to keep from understanding that this body is trying 
to work its way toward a balanced budget and also provide for those who 
really are in need and keep the programs that we have available to 
senior citizens not only today but in the future.

  It provides for Medicare payment for another medicine for breast 
cancer treatment and prostate cancer treatment. It is a good bill. It 
has been endorsed by the Citizens Against Government Waste. Mr. Tom 
Schatz has given us a letter, which I would like to make a part of the 
Record, that says, on behalf of their 600,000 members they endorse the 
continuing resolution for fiscal year 1996. We should be applauded, 
they say, for meeting the targets set by the budget resolution saving 
taxpayers $24 billion in this fiscal year. And they also support the 
inclusion of the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh compromise in this resolution.
  They say the reforms in this proposal would end welfare for 
lobbyists, preventing tax dollars from being used by nonprofit groups 
to push a political agenda.
  This is a good bill, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence:

                    Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,
                                                 November 8, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Livingston,
     Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the 
     Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I 
     endorse the Continuing Resolution for FY 1996 (H.J. Res. 
     115). This resolution is crucial to put federal spending on a 
     seven-year glide path toward a balanced budget.
       Mr. Chairman, you and the other members of the committee 
     should be applauded for meeting the targets set by the budget 
     resolution, saving taxpayers $24 billion in FY 1996, and for 
     crafting this legislation.
       H.J. Res. 115 will set spending limits at levels approved 
     in the budget resolution and in the appropriations bills 
     passed by the House for FY 1996. More importantly, this 
     resolution allows the process of shutting down unnecessary 
     programs and departments targeted for elimination to go 
     forward.
       We also support the inclusion of the Simpson-Istook 
     compromise in this resolution. The reforms in this proposal 
     would end ``welfare for lobbyists,'' preventing tax dollars 
     from being used by non-profit groups to push a political 
     agenda. Lobbying should be voluntary, not coerced. CCAGW 
     opposes any attempt to strip this language from the bill.
       We urge all members of the House to support this 
     legislation and keep the promise that Congress made to 
     taxpayers.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  Let me simply say, I think that the gentleman from Louisiana 
misspoke. This proposal does not make it illegal for lobbyists to use 
taxpayers' money to lobby. That is already in the law. That is a red 
herring. It is a phoney argument.
  No group who receives Federal money under a grant from the Government 
of the United States can use one dime of that money to lobby and the 
gentleman knows it and ought not to imply otherwise.
  Let me simply say that my motion to recommit will do what the 
committee ought to have done today. It will simply bring a simple 1-
month extension to the floor of this House, stripped of any ideological 
bells and whistles on either side of the philosophical aisle. It will 
simply provide for a 1-month extension so that we do not hurt innocent 
people because the Congress has not been able to fulfill its work.
  The President has not prevented these bills from becoming law. This 
Congress' own mismanagement has prevented these bills from becoming 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Louisiana spoke just a second 
ago, and he said, in a modulated voice, 

[[Page H 11902]]
that this was just basically a very simple bill.
  Well, it is not a simple bill, if you are a struggling senior citizen 
and you are worried about the increases in part B of your Medicare. I 
would remind my friend from Louisiana that 60 percent of the seniors in 
this country have incomes of $10,000 a year or less, 60 percent. This 
bill is the first step on the way, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] has indicated, to doubling those premiums over a period of years.
  Now, all across the country, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in some of the 
most conservative areas of the country, the American people rejected 
Republican cuts to Medicare. They rejected Republican cuts to student 
loans. They rejected these tax breaks the Republicans are putting 
forward for the wealthy in our country. Yet here we are on the floor 
today, 24 hours after the polls have closed out in the East, 
considering a bill that raises the Medicare premiums for every senior 
citizen in America.
  Under this bill, as of January 1, Medicare premiums for every senior 
citizen in America will go up. They just could not wait, they had to 
pull their Medicare premium increases out of their Medicare bill so 
they could make sure that on New Year's Day every senior citizen in 
America will get a surprise from Speaker Gingrich, an increase in their 
Medicare premium. What a New Year's present. Of course, we were not 
told that this bill raises Medicare preimums. Senior citizens were not 
told. The American people were not told.
  But last night, late in the evening, when most Americans had gone to 
sleep, I had been watching the TV looking at the election results and 
watching Democrats win all over this country, I happened to flip on to 
C-SPAN and I saw the Committee on Rules put in this increase for our 
seniors.
  Did you really think that you would get away with this? Did you 
really think that nobody would notice?
  Mr. Speaker, why are Gingrich Republicans so addicted to secrecy? It 
has been 2 weeks now since Republicans in the House and the Senate 
voted to cut Medicare in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. 
In the House, Gingrich Republicans voted to double premiums and abolish 
nursing home protections. And over in the Senate where the Republicans 
control, they voted to double Medicare deductibles. Now it is time for 
both Houses to work out the details, but instead of holding public 
hearings, instead of holding public meetings, instead of letting the 
public see what you are up to, no one can even find your closed door 
meetings.

  Now we see the evidence of your work on the floor this evening. Well, 
you can hide all you want to, and you can try to put one over on the 
American people. But you are not going to get away with it. Yesterday's 
election proved the American people know the truth.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey motion to recommit. Vote 
against this bill and say no to cutting Medicare.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of program notes. First, we 
should be reminded that seniors in poverty have their Medicare premiums 
paid by the government. Second, I would ask my colleague from Michigan, 
the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished whip, if in fact the 
actions to which he referred to as such secret actions were so secret, 
how is it he was in his home watching them on television?
  Those points being made, Mr. Speaker, let me remind ourselves, and if 
I may, addressing my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle 
with this reminder that it was just a year ago, on November 8, 1994, 
the American people turned to us and said, we would choose you to be 
the majority in the House of Representatives. We would choose you to 
take this nation in a new direction. We would choose that we would have 
a smaller, less intrusive government, a government that had the decency 
to know the goodness of the American people and the discipline to 
respect that. And they set us on a course of change.
  Change is a difficult business. And change, quite frankly, is an 
unnerving business. In those first heady days of this session of 
Congress, when things always seemed to go so swimmingly well, I think 
we became convinced that perhaps we could do everything without much 
difficulty.

                              {time}  1930

  I might take a moment to just mention, Mr. Speaker, that just a week 
or so ago I was musing with my wife about how difficult it has become 
to make this change, and I said, ``Well, honey,'' I address my wife 
that way, ``Honey'' I said, ``Do we think that the forces of 
opposition, the defenders of the status quo, the proponents of big 
government, would not fight back?'' Yes, they are fighting back, and 
unhappily they are fighting back, it seems, without a great deal of 
regard for the accuracy of what the characterizations of their 
statements are, and, yes, change is an unnerving business. The process 
of change is scary because as we even leave those things which we know 
are failed policies and turn in a new direction, we must be concerned 
about what will be the outcome of this new direction, but when we know 
for sure things have not worked well in our lives, it is time to make 
that change, and we worked hard, and I have to tell my colleagues we 
have not gotten much help in the effort.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had more hours in session in this Congress than 
any session I have ever seen. We have had more votes, and we have had 
more dilatorious procedural votes designed to do nothing other but 
throw sand in the gears of change of the American people's Congress in 
the process of making law to give change to the American people. No 
other purpose whatsoever except to stall, delay, obstruct, and obscure; 
so, yes, we are doing it, and we are unhappily, my colleagues, doing it 
on our own. And not only that, we do it each day with a gun to our 
head.

  The President of the United States, who has disdained any invitation 
we have had to join the effort, to involve himself in the process, has 
sat comfortably in the White House or on the campaign trail and said, 
``Whatever you send me I will veto,'' and the last time we sent him a 
bill, and he vetoed it, he gave us not even a reason for his veto, and 
so, yes, we continue to work, and we are working hard, and we are 
staying on course toward a balanced budget.
  Now we have had one continuing resolution, and it was a continuing 
resolution that was very stable, and still the President and his team 
did not involve themselves, and now we are at a point where we are 
offering another continuing resolution so we continue the work, and 
this continuing resolution is a continuing resolution that is designed 
to get the President's attention and have the President and his party 
respond to the continuing resolution. Come join the effort. Let's get 
this job done. Let's get a mark on the budget this year that moves us 
towards that balanced budget in 7 years. Let's make the reforms, let's 
make the revisions, let's change the programs, let's improve the 
programs, and in some dire cases of distress let's save the programs. 
Benign neglect is not good enough for those programs precious to our 
seniors, and those programs that are failing our children are no longer 
programs that we ought to be continuing, so it is time for change.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight we are asking our Members to step up to the 
plate and to take this bill, this bill that makes a downpayment on our 
trip to the balanced budget and provides the invitation to the 
President to once again get involved, Mr. President, with the making of 
public policy. The Presidency of the United States is too important to 
just sit on the outside and not being involved, and then when we get to 
this point we will ask ourselves when we are asked to make this vote, 
``Will you vote to leave our children with the American dream or to 
leave our children with the American debt?'' I will tell my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle that I vote for the American dream, and I 
ask my colleagues to do the same. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
and move this process forward, get everybody with responsibilities 
involved in this process. Let us give the American people the kind of 
government, the kind of programs, the 

[[Page H 11903]]
kind of assistance that mixes understanding with compassion and knows, 
and understands, and responds to who they really are and what are their 
real needs.
  I say, ``Let's do it tonight, and, Mr. President, if you happen to be 
home watching us do this in secret, again I would address you and your 
administration. Get involved. It is time to get involved. Respond to 
the American people, exercise your responsibilities.''
  I say vote ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time and was read the third time.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. OBEY. I think that is safe to say, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the joint resolution H.J. Res. 115 be 
     recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report the joint resolution back to the House 
     forthwith with the following amendment:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       ``That section 106(c) of Public Law 104-31 (109 Stat. 280) 
     is amended by striking ``November 13, 1995'' and inserting 
     ``December 13, 1995''.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what this motion tries to do is to simply 
recognize we have a serious problem on our hands. It recognizes that 
the Congress has been unable to finish 89 percent of its appropriations 
work, and so what it attempts to do is to simply continue funding for 
the Government for another 30 days without any extraneous legislative 
riders whatsoever. It attempts not to raise new arguments or open new 
wounds so that we have a chance of getting the Senate to pass the same 
language that is passed by the House and, therefore, so that we have a 
chance to send something to the President which he will sign.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our view simply that by adding the language of the 
Istook amendment, which has already tied down one bill for over 50 
days, that we go in the opposite direction of the direction that we 
have to proceed in if we want to solve this immediate problem. We 
certainly do not believe that this is an appropriate vehicle to begin 
the process by which we double or virtually double Medicare premiums, 
and so that item is also stripped out of the motion to recommit.
  This is an effort to bridge differences rather than create new ones. 
It simply continues the same language that the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] and the majority party brought to this House about 5 
weeks ago. This is what we ought to do if we want to avoid innocent 
people being hurt with the Government shut down, and I would urge 
Members to adopt it.
  Mr.. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman must consume 
the entire 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I doubt I will use all of my time, 
either. I appreciate the tenor of the gentleman's argument. I just 
happen to disagree with him, and I certainly urge the defeat of his 
motion to recommit, and I urge passage of this continuing resolution.
  This is a continuing resolution that keeps Government working for 2 
weeks. Two weeks. Nothing more than that. It keeps government going. It 
does include other issues, the Istook language and the Medicare part B 
language and the breast cancer and prostate cancer treatment language 
which is nothing more than spending money on cancer drugs to keep 
people alive. It would send those, because they are important, over to 
the Senate and asks them to take a look at these issues and to deal 
with them. but otherwise this bill simply provides a formula to keep 
government operating for 2 weeks.
  Yes, it is more restrictive than the last continuing resolution 
because the idea is to encourage both the Members of this body, the 
Members of the other body, to pay attention to the appropriations bills 
that have already passed the House of Representatives and to also 
encourage the President to pay attention to those bills when they come 
to him and not frivolously veto them like he did the legislative branch 
bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be 
taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has demanded 
that words be taken down.

                              {time}  1945

  The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       . . . Yes, it is more restrictive than the last continuing 
     resolution because the idea is to encourage both the Members 
     of this body, the Members of the other body, to pay attention 
     to the appropriation bills that have already passed the House 
     of Representatives, and to also encourage the President to 
     pay attention to those bills when they come to him and not 
     frivolously veto them like he did the legislative branch 
     bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer] withdraw his demand?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Of course not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman insist on his demand?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I insist on my demand, because by using the word 
``frivolous'' he has characterized the motive of the President in 
vetoing the legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the words were 
not a personal affront to the President, and are not considered 
inappropriate.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will proceed.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if I might continue where I was before I 
was so frivolously interrupted, the fact is that this House is 
completing its action on the glidepath toward a balanced budget. All of 
the appropriations bills that we have passed this year, plus the 
rescissions bills that preceded them in the spring of this year, have 
reaped the American taxpayer some $44 billion in savings. That is not 
frivolous. Those are real savings, savings under what would have been 
appropriated by the other side, had they acted as they did under their 
plans for some 40 years of frivolous misrule.
  Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be logical, realistic, nonfrivolous 
here. We are about real things. We are about real things. We are about 
keeping the Government going. For the next 2 or 3 weeks we need to keep 
the Government operating. That is why we need this continuing 
resolution.
  If we can keep the continuing resolution on track, if we pass it 
tonight, if the Senate passes it, if we can send it to the President, 
we can keep the Government operating and we can stay on that glidepath 
toward a balanced budget.
  If we get that balanced budget, by even the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, Mr. Greenspan's accounts, we will lower interest rates, we 
will increase productivity, we will create incredible opportunity for 
growth and jobs and wealth for ourselves, for our children, and our 
grandchildren.
  We are getting this country back on the track of nonfrivolous 
economic sanity, and this bill is just one step in the process. I urge 
my colleagues, don't be frivolous, don't vote ``no.'' Vote ``aye'' on 
the continuing resolution, send it to the Senate, and let us send it to 
the President so he cannot be frivolous, and sign the bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and the irresponsible way the Republican leadership has decided to deal 
with our Nation's finances. The Constitution gives Congress the power 
of the purse. This is one of our most fundamental and basic 
responsibilities. It is essential that we meet it. We are now 39 days 
into the new fiscal year, yet only 2 of 13 spending bills have been 
signed into law.
  Today, instead of moving the process along, we will again dawdle over 
unrelated issues such as the Istook gag amendment, which has nothing to 
do with the budget, and is unconstitutional and un-American.
  Since they cannot get this legislation enacted because of its 
demerits, Mr. Istook and 

[[Page H 11904]]
his supporters are willing to shut this government down in order to 
shut the American people up.
  The Istook language says it's okay to speak if you follow ``generally 
accepted accounting principles,'' subject yourself to a Federal audit, 
assume the presumption of guilt and hold yourself out to harassing 
lawsuits by individuals acting as private attorney generals.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. I represents 
everything bad in a closed and autocratic system.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a concern raised 
in the past by some Members about the scope of the exclusion for loans 
in the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich provision to end welfare for lobbyists. 
As you know loans made by the government are expressly excluded from 
the definition of grant in the bill. Some Members of Congress have 
expressed concern about whether this exclusion touches on those who 
service or administer such loans. The sponsors of the bill intended 
this exclusion for loans to include compensation paid to those who 
provide services related to the making and administering of loans. I 
hope that this clarifies any confusion and resolves those concerns.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
express my support of House Joint Resolution 115. Mr. Speaker, with 
House Joint Resolution 115 we are saying ``No more excuses. No more 
Washington gimmicks. It's time to do the right thing for America's 
future.'' With our actions, today, we are making a downpayment on our 
promise to balance the budget in 7 years and build a brighter future 
for our Nation.
  I also want to take this opportunity to express my strong support of 
a provision in this measure that is a down-payment on the lives of over 
40,000 women annually. A provision that not only will save millions of 
lives but millions of dollars at the same time. Specifically, this bill 
includes a provision to expand Medicare coverage for oral hormonal 
cancer drugs for breast and prostate cancer victims. While Medicare 
currently provides coverage for some oral cancer drugs, it does not 
cover oral hormonal therapies which are used in the post-surgical 
treatment of approximately 50 percent of all breast cancer patients, as 
well as the thousands of men whose cancer has spread beyond the 
prostate.
  Mr. Speaker, breast cancer strikes approximately one in eight women 
in their lifetime and is the second leading cause of deaths among 
women. In 1995 alone, an estimated 182,000 new cases of breast cancer 
are expected to be diagnosed, with almost 60 percent of those cases 
diagnosed in women over the age of 65. Medicare coverage of post-
surgical treatment of estrogen receptive positive tumors is the next 
logical step in fighting both breast cancer and prostate cancer. The 
only drug to treat these breast cancers post-surgically is a 
chemostatic drug that deprives the tumor of the estrogen it needs to 
grow. Due to a technicality in the law, such drugs are not covered by 
Medicare because it was never previously available in intravenous or 
injectable form. It simply does not make sense that millions of lives 
should be left hanging in the balance because of a technicality in the 
law.
  I commend all of my female colleagues, particularly Congresswoman 
Nancy Johnson and Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich, with whom I have 
worked to ensure an end to this discrimination. Mr. Speaker, when a 
nation prepares for war it sends in its most powerful armaments into 
battle. I would think every Member of this body would agree that breast 
cancer and prostate cancer patients deserve nothing less.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. A strong 
majority of Americans do not believe that special interest groups who 
receive funding from the Federal Government should, in turn, be using 
these funds, either directly or indirectly, to lobby the government.
  During the week of September 26-30, the Luntz Research Companies 
conducted a national study of 1,000 adults on a variety of important 
national issues. Included among these questions were two questions 
relating to the issue of public funding of special interest groups who 
lobby the government.
  By a margin of 70 percent to 26 percent, Americans agree that tax 
dollars shouldn't be used to fund groups to lobby government. In 
addition, the data clearly demonstrates that opposition to special 
interest group funding for lobbying knows virtually no party, 
ideological, gender, age, or attitudinal boundaries.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I have saved the best for last. Over half of 
the people polled, 56 percent, would be less likely to support a Member 
of Congress for reelection if he or she opposed measures to stop such 
uses of taxpayers' funds.
  Mr. Speaker, the message of the American people is clear: End 
taxpayer subsidized lobbying. I urge my colleagues to support the 
McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich reforms.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198, 
nays 227, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 774]

                               YEAS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts

[[Page H 11905]]

     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2008

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HOYER, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and DAVIS, and Mrs. MORELLA 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray). The question is on passage of 
the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 197, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 775]

                               AYES--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fields (LA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2025

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________