[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 178 (Friday, November 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12113-H12119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO DISPOSE OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 115, 
         FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to House Resolution 
261, the Senate amendments are considered as read.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Page 2, line 20, after ``1948,'' insert: section 313 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 
     1995 (Public Law 103-236),

       Page 10, line 19, after ``resolution.'' insert: Included in 
     the apportionment for the Federal Payment to the District of 
     Columbia shall be an additional $15,000,000 above the amount 
     otherwise made available by this joint resolution, for 
     purposes of certain capital construction loan repayments 
     pursuant to Public Law 85-451, as amended.

       Page 15, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and 
     including line 7 on page 36, and insert:

                               TITLE III


 PROHIBITION ON SUBSIDIZING POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH TAXPAYER FUNDS

       Sec. 301. (a) Limitations.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any organization receiving Federal grants 
     in an amount that, in the aggregate, is greater than $125,000 
     in the most recent Federal fiscal year, shall be subject to 
     the limitations on lobbying activity expenditures under 
     section 4911(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     except that, if exempt purpose expenditures are over 
     $17,000,000 then the organization shall also be subject to a 
     limitation on lobbying of 1 percent of the excess of the 
     exempt purpose expenditures over $17,000,000 unless otherwise 
     subject to section 4911(c)(2)(A) based on an election made 
     under section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) 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 to receive Federal funds constituting a 
     taxpayer subsidized grant. This paragraph shall not apply to 
     organizations described in section 501(c)(4) with gross 
     annual revenues of less than $3,000,000 in such previous 
     taxable year, including Federal funds received as a taxpayer 
     subsidized grant.
       (b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Client.--The term ``client'' means any person or entity 
     that employs or retains another person for financial or other 
     compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that 
     person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as 
     lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer 
     of such employees. In the case of a coalition or association 
     that employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying 
     activities, the client is the coalition or association and 
     not its individual members.
       (3) Covered executive branch official.--The term ``covered 
     executive branch official'' means--
       (A) the President;
       (B) the Vice President;
       (C) any officer or employee, or any other individual 
     functioning in the capacity of such an officer or employee, 
     in the Executive Office of the President;
       (D) any officer or employee serving in a position in level 
     I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as designated 
     by statute or Executive order;
       (E) any member of the uniformed services whose pay grade is 
     at or above O-7 under section 201 of title 37, United States 
     Code; and
       (F) any officer or employee serving in a position of a 
     confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
     advocating character described in section 7511(b)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (4) Covered legislative branch official.--The term 
     ``covered legislative branch official'' means--
       (A) a Member of Congress;
       (B) an elected officer of either House of Congress;
       (C) any employee of, or any other individual functioning in 
     the capacity of an employee of--
       (i) a Member of Congress;
       (ii) a committee of either House of Congress;
       (iii) the leadership staff of the House of Representatives 
     or the leadership staff of the Senate;
       (iv) a joint committee of Congress; and
       (v) a working group or caucus organized to provide 
     legislative services or other assistance to Members of 
     Congress; and
       (D) any other legislative branch employee serving in a 
     position described under section 109(13) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (5) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means any individual 
     who is an officer, employee, partner, director, or proprietor 
     of a person or entity, but does not include--
       (A) independent contractors; or
       (B) volunteers who receive no financial or other 
     compensation from the person or entity for their services.
       (6) Foreign entity.--The term ``foreign entity'' means a 
     foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611(b)).
       (7) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means the provision of any 
     Federal funds, appropriated under this or any other Act, to 
     carry out a public purpose of the United States, except--
       (A) 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;
       (B) the payments of loans, debts, or entitlements;
       (C) the provision of funds to, or distribution of funds by, 
     a Federal court established under Article I or III of the 
     Constitution of the United States;
       (D) nonmonetary assistance provided by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to organizations approved or recognized 
     under section 5902 of title 38, United States Code; and
       (E) the provision of grant and scholarship funds to 
     students for educational purposes.
       (8) Lobbying activities.--The term ``lobbying activities'' 
     means lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such 
     contacts, including preparation and planning activities, 
     research and other background work that is intended, at the 
     time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination 
     with the lobbying activities of others.
       (9) Lobbying contact.--
       (A) Definition.--The term ``lobbying contact'' means any 
     oral or written communication (including an electronic 
     communication) to a covered executive branch official or a 
     covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of 
     a client with regard to--
       (i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including legislative proposals);
       (ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a 
     Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other 
     program, policy, or position of the United States Government;
       (iii) the administration or execution of a Federal program 
     or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license); or
       (iv) the nomination or confirmation of a person for a 
     position subject to confirmation by the Senate.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``lobbying contact'' does not 
     include a communication that is--
       (i) made by a public official acting in the public 
     official's official capacity;
       (ii) made by a representative of a media organization if 
     the purpose of the communication is gathering and 
     disseminating news and information to the public;
       (iii) made in a speech, article, publication or other 
     material that is distributed and made available to the 
     public, or through radio, television, cable television, or 
     other medium of mass communication;
       (iv) made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or 
     a foreign political party and disclosed under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.);
       (v) a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an 
     action, or any other similar administrative request, if the 
     request does not include an attempt to influence a covered 
     executive branch official or a covered legislative branch 
     official;
       (vi) made in the course of participation in an advisory 
     committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
       (vii) testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or 
     task force of the Congress, or submitted for inclusion in the 
     public record of a hearing conducted by such committee, 
     subcommittee, or task force;
       (viii) information provided in writing in response to an 
     oral or written request by a covered executive branch 
     official or a covered legislative branch official for 
     specific information;
       (ix) required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or 
     otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other action 
     of the Congress or an agency;
       (x) made in response to a notice in the Federal Register, 
     Commerce Business Daily, or other similar publication 
     soliciting communications from the public and directed to the 
     agency official specifically designated in the notice to 
     receive such communications;
       (xi) not possible to report without disclosing information, 
     the unauthorized disclosure of which is prohibited by law;
       (xii) made to an official in an agency with regard to--

       (I) a judicial proceeding or a criminal or civil law 
     enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or
       (II) a filing or proceeding that the Government is 
     specifically required by statute or regulation to maintain or 
     conduct on a confidential basis,


[[Page H 12114]]


     if that agency is charged with responsibility for such 
     proceeding, inquiry, investigation, or filing;
       (xiii) made in compliance with written agency procedures 
     regarding an adjudication conducted by the agency under 
     section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or substantially 
     similar provisions;
       (xiv) a written comment filed in the course of a public 
     proceeding or any other communication that is made on the 
     record in a public proceeding;
       (xv) a petition for agency action made in writing and 
     required to be a matter of public record pursuant to 
     established agency procedures;
       (xvi) made on behalf of an individual with regard to that 
     individual's benefits, employment, or other personal matters 
     involving only that individual, except that this clause does 
     not apply to any communication with--

       (I) a covered executive branch official, or
       (II) a covered legislative branch official (other than the 
     individual's elected Members of Congress or employees who 
     work under such Members' direct supervision),

     with respect to the formulation, modification, or adoption of 
     private legislation for the relief of that individual;
       (xvii) a disclosure by an individual that is protected 
     under the amendments made by the Whistleblower Protection Act 
     of 1989, under the Inspector General Act of 1978, or under 
     another provision of law;
       (xviii) made by--

       (I) a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or 
     association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return under paragraph 2(A)(i) of section 6033(a) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
       (II) a religious order that is exempt from filing a Federal 
     income tax return under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) of such section 
     6033(a); and

       (xix) between--

       (I) officials of a self-regulatory organization (as defined 
     in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act) that is 
     registered with or established by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission as required by that Act or a similar organization 
     that is designated by or registered with the Commodities 
     Future Trading Commission as provided under the Commodity 
     Exchange Act; and
       (II) the Securities and Exchange Commission or the 
     Commodities Future Trading Commission, respectively;

     relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such 
     organization under that Act.
       (10) Lobbying firm.--The term ``lobbying firm'' means a 
     person or entity that has 1 or more employees who are 
     lobbyists on behalf of a client other than that person or 
     entity. The term also includes a self-employed individual who 
     is a lobbyist.
       (11) Lobbyist.--The term ``lobbyist'' means any individual 
     who is employed or retained by a client for financial or 
     other compensation for services that include more than one 
     lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying 
     activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time 
     engaged in the services provided by such individual to that 
     client over a six month period.
       (12) Media organization.--The term ``media organization'' 
     means a person or entity engaged in disseminating information 
     to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other 
     publication, radio, television, cable television, or other 
     medium of mass communication.
       (13) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress'' 
     means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
       (14) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means a 
     person or entity other than an individual.
       (15) Person or entity.--The term ``person or entity'' means 
     any individual, corporation, company, foundation, 
     association, labor organization, firm, partnership, society, 
     joint stock company, group of organizations, or State or 
     local government.
       (16) Public official.--The term ``public official'' means 
     any elected official, appointed official, or employee of--
       (A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the 
     United States other than--
       (i) a college or university;
       (ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in 
     section 3(8) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974);
       (iii) a public utility that provides gas, electricity, 
     water, or communications;
       (iv) a guaranty agency (as defined in section 435(j) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(j))), including 
     any affiliate of such an agency; or
       (v) an agency of any State functioning as a student loan 
     secondary market pursuant to section 435(d)(1)(F) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(F));
       (B) a Government corporation (as defined in section 9101 of 
     title 31, United States Code);
       (C) an organization of State or local elected or appointed 
     officials other than officials of an entity described in 
     clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subparagraph (A);
       (D) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b(e));
       (E) a national or State political party or any 
     organizational unit thereof; or
       (F) a national, regional, or local unit of any foreign 
     government.
       (17) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.


                        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 previous Federal fiscal year, certified by the 
     taxpayer subsidized grantee's chief executive officer or 
     equivalent person of authority, 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)(A) a statement that the taxpayer subsidized grantee 
     spent less than $25,000 on lobbying activities in the 
     grantee's most recent taxable year; or
       (B)(i) the amount or value of the taxpayer subsidized grant 
     (including all administrative and overhead costs awarded);
       (ii) a good faith estimate of the grantee's actual expenses 
     on lobbying activities in the most recent taxable year; and
       (iii) a good faith estimate of the grantee's allowed 
     expenses on lobbying activities under section 301 of this 
     Act.


                         public accountability

       Sec. 303. (a) Public Availability of Lobbying Disclosure 
     Forms.--Any Federal entity awarding a taxpayer subsidized 
     grant shall make publicly available any taxpayer subsidized 
     grant application, and the annual report of a taxpayer 
     subsidized grantee provided under section 302 of this Act.
       (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.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this title 
     shall become effective January 4, 1996.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Livingston moves:
       (1) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
     numbered 1,
       (2) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
     numbered 2,
       (3) That the House concur in the amendment of the Senate 
     numbered 3 with an amendment as follows:
       Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning 
     on page 15, line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution, 
     H.J. Res. 115, strike all down to and including line 7, on 
     page 36, and redesignate Title IV as Title III, and renumber 
     sections accordingly.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 261, 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].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)


                             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 
and that I be permitted to 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, last night, the Senate amended House 
Joint Resolution 115, the second continuing resolution. The amendments: 
insert language included in the first CR to permit spending by the USIA 
in the absence of an authorization; insert a provision that would 
increase the amount made available to the District of Columbia by $15 
million so that it could make guaranteed loan payments to the Treasury; 
and modify the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh political advocacy language.
  Mr. Speaker, I am offering a motion to dispose of these amendments. 
The first two are not controversial and make improvements to the CR and 
my motion is to concur with these amendments, for they are fine. The 
modification to the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language unfortunately is 
technically insufficient and therefore, is not acceptable. There is 
agreement that we can not get an acceptable version on this matter 
agreed to on this CR. 

[[Page H 12115]]
Therefore, my motion is to delete the Senate proposed modification and 
to delete the underlying Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language, so that it 
hopefully will be addressed at another time.
  We need to keep the Government operating. The current CR expires on 
midnight, Monday, November 13. Disposing of the Senate amendments to 
this CR will kick it back to the Senate for their action when they 
return on Monday afternoon. This is the proper course for us to take at 
this time. I urge all of my colleagues to support my motion.
  I urge all of my friends on both sides of the aisle to be brief.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
   Mr. Speaker, the primary job of the Congress, when it comes to 
appropriation bills, is simply to make all of its financial decisions 
and get all 13 appropriation bills finished by the end of the fiscal 
year. This year that did not happen, for one very clear reason. It has 
nothing whatsoever to do with any fault of the gentleman from 
Louisiana, the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has done a 
fine job.
  The reason we are late is because the first 100 days of the session 
were devoted to passing what was known as the Contract With America, 
which the Congress and the country were told had been developed through 
extensive polling to determine exactly what the public wanted. And we 
were told by, among other people, the Speaker's pollster, that each and 
every proposal in the contract had been thoroughly tested.
  Now, in fact, today's newspapers carry the confession from the 
Speaker's pollster that in fact those ideas were not tested with the 
American public, that the only thing that was tested were the 
advertising slogans associated with the sales job on that contract. So 
we spent 100 days in the beginning of the session working on 
legislation which was produced without the extensive documentation that 
we were told had taken place with respect to public opinion.
  Because of that fact, the Congress did not have time to finish its 
appropriation bills. This chart demonstrates where we are at this 
point. This chart, which looks like a number of horses on a race track, 
shows that there are only 2 of the 13 appropriation bills which have 
passed the finish line, the military construction bill and the 
agriculture bill, and they both have been signed by the President. The 
third bill which has passed the congressional finish line, energy and 
water, has been finished by the Congress and I expect it will soon be 
signed by the President.
  That means that there are 10 of the remaining appropriation bills 
which have still not gone through both houses of Congress, been 
conferenced out and sent to the President. That means that those 10 
bills are literally stuck in the mud, and at this point they constitute 
88 percent of the appropriated portion of the budget for the coming 
fiscal year.
  So 88 percent of the Congress's work is not yet done, and yet today, 
because of that fact, we are told that we should pass a continuing 
resolution which ``puts more pressure on the President,'' rather than 
simply passing a straight, clean continuing resolution to give the 
Congress more time to do its own work.
  I find it quaint that we are being asked to ratchet up the pressure 
on the President because he has not signed bills that have not yet been 
sent to him. I really find that logic very difficult to follow.

                              {time}  1400

  Instead of sending a simple, clean CR to the President, which he has 
already indicated he would sign and which we have tried twice already 
today to get on this floor to pass, instead we are told we have to add 
two totally unrelated legislative riders. The first is that we are told 
we have to raise Medicare part B premiums by $13, from basic law; and, 
second, until a few minutes ago, we were told that we needed to also 
add the Istook amendment, which put a gag on virtually every major 
charity in this country.
  Now we are being told that the motion that the gentleman is going to 
be making will drop the Istook amendment. I thank you for small favors. 
That amendment has hung up the appropriation process for 53 legislative 
days. It does not belong on any appropriation bill whatsoever. I am 
happy that, belatedly, the majority party recognizes that fact.
  But I would say also that neither does an unrelated rider belong on 
this bill which will force the Congress to ratify the decision of the 
majority party to raise the Medicare part B premium. In fact, they not 
only want to raise it, they want to raise it by $2 more per month than 
they did just 2 weeks ago in their basic budget.

  Now, we have heard today that they are doing that to save Medicare. 
Well, again, we remember what Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dole said just 2 
weeks ago behind closed doors when Mr. Dole said on October 24, ``I was 
there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, 1 of the 12, because 
we knew it would not work in 1965.''
  Then we had the Speaker talking to Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and he was 
discussing Medicare and saying:

       We don't get rid of it in round one, because we don't think 
     that is politically smart and we don't think that is the 
     right way to go through a transition period. But we believe 
     it is going to wither on the vine, because we think people 
     are voluntarily going to leave it.

  That does not sound like a crew interested in compromise. It 
certainly does not sound to me like a crew interested in saving 
Medicare. They cannot resist coming to the floor at every opportunity 
and trying to push up the cost of Medicare to seniors and to squeeze at 
the same time what the Federal Government will pay to meet Medicare 
costs.
  I would simply urge the majority party to do what every person in 
this room knows ought to happen, to drop the ideological zeal, to drop 
the hunger for creating additional divisions.
  Our main duty today is not to have further partisan fights. Our main 
duty is to simply keep the Government going. You can do that by passing 
a clean CR without trying to hold Medicare hostage to a Presidential 
signature on the continuing resolution.
  I urge a vote no on the Livingston motion.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, would have us 
believe that this resolution is unusual in some way. Well, he knows 
that while the Democrats were in control of the House of 
Representatives for 40 uninterrupted years, going back as far back as 
1977, which is the last date I have figures for, we had 1 continuing 
resolution for 1 bill; again, in 1978, another bill; in 1979, for 3 
bills; in 1980, 4 bills; in 1981, 4 bills; in 1982, 6 bills; 1983, 3 
bills; 1984, 8 bills; 1985, 7 bills; and then 1986 and 1987, they were 
still in control, 13 bills each.
  Continuing resolutions were a way of life under the Democrat-
controlled House of Representatives. Frankly, I tend to agree with the 
gentleman. I would just as soon not have continuing resolutions.
  I am sorry we did not get the business done, but we did go through 
the Contract With America for 4 months. This Congress, by David 
Broder's admission and the admission of most of the other commentators 
who follow Capitol Hill, has been one of the most productive Congresses 
in the history of modern times in America. We have been busy. We have 
worked hard. Everybody knows about the hours we are putting in. The 
appropriation bills have not been completed, and that is not unusual.
  The fact is, we have totally completed three bills. The President has 
signed two, and he has sent back one, and I still, 6 weeks later, have 
yet to understand why he did not sign that bill, the legislative branch 
bill.
  We have three others ready for him right now. They are just on their 
way. In fact, one is on the way. Energy and water is before him as 
well. These bills are working their way through. In another 2 weeks, we 
will have virtually all of them to him.
  Now, this is a regular, routine, traditional process. Yes, we are 
scaling back on the continuing resolution funding rate this time, our 
second one, because we want to make it less attractive, not only for 
the President but for the Congress, to operate on a continuing 
resolution. It is more important that we go ahead and pass the 
appropriation bills 

[[Page H 12116]]
and that they become the law of the land and that we not fund 
government under continuing resolutions. So we do not want to make a 
continuing resolution more attractive than the alternative, thirteen 
regular bills through the traditional legislative process.
  But we are asking for 2 additional weeks, 2 additional weeks, from 
November 13 through December 1. That is not outrageous, and it is not 
outrageous to ask the President to sign 2 additional weeks. But he is 
making a grandstand effort, using intemperate language. I think Leon 
Panetta said, ``We are holding a gun to his head, threatening to blow 
him up, blow up government, if nothing happens.'' That is intemperate.
  The point is, all the language, all of the rhetoric, all of the 
extreme talk that we have been hearing over the last few days, is just 
that. It means nothing. We are going to pass this continuing resolution 
today.
  We have dropped the Simpson-Istook-McIntosh language, because, 
unfortunately, what the Senate did last night turned out to be 
technically less than perfect. It was not their fault. It was just a 
drafting problem that left us in a quandary. So we will address that 
issue at another date.
  That was an objection of the President's. We are taking that 
objection out. There is no reason for him not to sign this bill. It is 
a perfectly good bill.
  When it leaves here, it will go to the Senate, and they will just 
simply agree to what we did, and then he will have it on his desk on 
time, by November 13, and then he can sign it.
  By the way, that is my 30th wedding anniversary. I remember that day.
  I think that what we are doing is not properly represented by all the 
hue and cry and extreme rhetoric we have heard. This bill should be 
passed. Let us vote on it. Let us go home and go home quickly so people 
can catch their planes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, the gentleman can talk about deep, 
ancient history as often as he wants. The fact is that last year, when 
I chaired the Committee on Appropriations, every single one of these 
appropriation bills was passed on time before the end of the fiscal 
year. The reason that happened is because I went to the ranking 
Republican and we worked out a bipartisan approach to each and every 
one of those 13 bills.
  That is what the gentleman from Louisiana's leadership should have 
allowed him to do. If they had, we would not be here today with the 
need for this resolution, and we would not be facing an extraneous 
debate on Medicare just because your party has a compulsion to raise 
Medicare fees every time they hit the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a big lie that Dachau never 
happened, and yet I hear people say it never happened in Germany. And 
here I heard that a balanced budget and the items in the contract and 
right here in appropriations were not tested.
  Well, it was not only tested across America, you ask any American if 
the balanced budget and line-item veto and Congress acting like 
everybody else is not tested. And then there was even a greater test 
right here on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. It received 315 votes, and 
failed in the Senate only by 1 vote, and we had two of the California 
Senators from the other body that voted against it, after they pledged 
in their campaign that they would vote for it; and, yes it was defeated 
in the Senate. So we place it on a bill, because we think that 
Americans want a balanced budget amendment. The President claims he 
wants a balanced budget amendment, and yet he will not sign it.
  The gentleman says, ``Look, we passed all of the appropriations bills 
when we were in power last year.'' They had the House, they had the 
Senate, they had the Presidency. And let us look what those bills were. 
They increased the marginal tax rate on the middle class after they 
promised they were going to decrease the tax on the middle class. They 
cut the COLA of the military. They increased the Social Security tax on 
our chronologically gifted folks. They cut defense $177 billion, after 
saying $50 billion would put us into a hollow force. So, yes, they 
passed it. And the liberals left agenda of this House, when they had 
all bodies, is the exact reason why we have more Democrats changing 
over to Republicans since the Whig Party.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, and I have not heard him mention the word 
``Medicare'' in any of his remarks. I would yield to the gentleman for 
a question: Does the gentleman's amendment delete the provision in the 
continuing resolution which increases the Medicare premiums by 25 
percent?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman knows this amendment has passed as part of this continuing 
resolution, gone to the Senate and passed, and it has a majority of the 
votes. It is simply an attempt to keep the Medicare program on track so 
it will be there for our children and grandchildren, and so that people 
who need assistance can get the assistance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the answer is 
no. I think after you listen carefully, what the gentleman came to 
conclude was no.
  What it means is there are two objectionable provisions in this bill. 
One is this rather strange Istook provision which keeps wandering back 
and forth. Finally they had the good sense to take that out. But they 
have left in the provision that is a real problem.
  The Republicans, in order to continue the business of the Federal 
Government, to keep the lights on, insist, insist, that the President 
must sign a bill to increase Medicare premiums on seniors by 25 
percent. He is not going to sign that bill.
  This is an issue like Banquo's ghost wandering through, rattling 
through the Halls of the Capitol. Speaker Gingrich is determined to 
raise Medicare premiums, at any cost. He will shut down the Federal 
Government so that he can raise Medicare premiums.
  The President has told him this is irresponsible. For many seniors, 
it will put an economic burden on them which they cannot shoulder. We 
have to make sure that Medicare is strong, but we cannot hit the most 
vulnerable seniors in our society by an increase in premiums.
  My friend from Louisiana has spoken long and eloquently about 
everything in this bill, and never mentioned the word ``Medicare.'' The 
reason, he cannot stand it. He cannot stand to bring this issue up, 
because he knows that three out of four of the American people believe 
Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans have gone too far, cutting 
Medicare to balance the budget, cutting Medicare to provide tax cuts 
for wealthy people.
  There is an old poem that went something like this: As I was going up 
the stair, I met a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I 
wish that man would go away.
  The man we are talking about here is Medicare. The Republicans do not 
want you to know it is in this bill, but it is right here on page 52, 
an increase in premiums, that will result in a veto by President 
Clinton, a veto for the American people, for the seniors in this 
country, an embarrassment to the Republicans that they will not even 
discuss on the floor of this House of Representatives.
  It is a sad commentary that next Tuesday we will be shutting down 
Federal agencies. Many people who will call these agencies to sign up 
for veterans benefits, for Social Security benefits, will find that 
nobody answers the phone. Some folks who are waiting at home to get 
their checks, whether it is from the Veterans Administration or college 
student loans, will wonder what happened to the checks. The checks will 
not be coming. The phones will not be answered, because the Republican 
strategy is to shut down the Government to raise Medicare premiums.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary. Shame on you. I am 
going to read how many times we had continuing resolutions under the 
Democrat's control just since 1977. I am also going to read how many 
times 

[[Page H 12117]]
they shut the Government down during Bush and Reagan Presidencies, 
because of their tactics. And here they come down on the House floor 
and shed these crocodile tears, how upset they are we are going to shut 
the Government down, and how we are forcing the Democrat Party to 
accept something against their will.
  Listen carefully, my colleagues. Since 1980 the Government has found 
itself with a funding gap nine different times.
  Nine different times the other side controlled Congress, so all of my 
colleagues coming down here with their crocodile tears does not hold 
water. Nine times the Democratic-run Congress shut down the Government.

                              {time}  1415

  In 1990, and guess who was chief, guess who was head of the Committee 
on the Budget at that time? Mr. Leon Panetta.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I will not yield to the gentleman from Maryland, at this 
time, I regret.
  When President Clinton's own Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, was the 
chairman of the House Committee on the Budget we shut the Government 
down, the Congress did, and Mr. Panetta was leading the charge. This is 
the same Mr. Panetta who now calls shutting down the Government this 
way a blackmail. Crocodile tears. Come on.
  Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this must be the pot calling the kettle black 
because Mr. Panetta was involved intimately with this business until 
the wee hours. We all remember, that we were here, until Christmas.
  In 1987, the Democrats shut the Congress down. In 1986 and 1984, once 
for 2 days and again 1 more day. In 1983, shut it down again. In 1982, 
twice more. Both times for 4 days. And then in 1981 they shut it down. 
How can they come down to the House floor and shed all these tears and 
talk about how this is terrible when they shut it down themselves nine 
times?
  Since 1977 the Democratic-run Congress has passed 55 continuing 
resolutions instead of a complete budget.
  Now, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], bless his soul, 
55 times we have had continuing resolutions yet we have all these 
charts and all this rhetoric talking about, oh, gee, we cannot have 
these continuing resolutions. But we have had 55 of these since 1977. 
Now their leaders claim such a resolution is a major problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me a question.
  Mr. STEARNS. It was a rhetorical question.
  Mr. OBEY. It certainly was.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, where were they when they passed 55 of 
these continuing resolutions?
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us legislation that would end the 
history, the 40-year history, of Democratic continuing resolutions, 
debt ceiling increases and, for once, set us on the right course toward 
a balanced budget. When those in opposition to this bill call this a 
crisis that we have caused, when those over there that are starting to 
stand say there is a crisis here in the House that we, the Republicans, 
have caused, I urge them to look at the record, look at their own 
mistakes, and say to them that Republicans have learned to do better.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to duplicate their failures. My 
colleagues on this side and that side of the aisle, let us start fresh 
and new and pass this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman wants to talk about history as 
if Ronald Reagan and George Bush had not participated in it. The fact 
of the matter is the gentleman from Kansas, Bob Dole, tries to pretend 
it is going to be the President who shuts down Government, but, 
apparently, for the last 40 years it was the Congress that shut down 
Government when Ronald Reagan or George Bush vetoed those CR's.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't recall that the gentleman yielded to 
me. If I could have recalled that, perhaps I would.
  The fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, we know what we 
should do responsibly. We know that we ought not to, in this bill, for 
the next 12 days, have to attack senior citizens and their Medicare and 
put them additionally at risk. That does not happen until January 1. 
There is no panic on that. Why is this Medicare proposal in here to 
increase the premium on seniors? It is not necessary.
  This does put at risk, as all of us know, because the President has 
said very clearly, I will not sign this bill. Therefore, we have a 
decision to make. Do we pass a continuing resolution which substitutes 
for our ability to do our job? Not the President, but our ability.

  As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said, last year all the 
bills passed in a timely fashion and were signed by the President. The 
fact of the matter is that we have not done our job and, therefore, 
what we should do, responsibly, is not look back and blame and point 
fingers. We should do the responsible thing today, and the responsible 
thing to do today is to say if we have not done our job, then we will 
provide for the next 2 weeks or 4 weeks for the ongoing operations of 
Government, which everybody intends to happen, without placing at risk 
Federal employees, but, more important, without placing at risk all 
Americans who rely on the jobs they do day to day.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, let us not go through the charade 
of striking Istook and sending it to the Senate, then going to the 
President and having him veto it and come back here. Let us do our job 
first and do it responsibly.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman kindly. The 
Republican majority does not want to shut down the Federal Government. 
I think that has been clearly stated. However, we are absolutely 
committed to placing our financial house in order. We had 25 years 
without balancing a budget. We have heard that before, but it is about 
time we started on the road to accomplishing that fact.
  Balancing the budget is no small task, Mr. Speaker. If it was easy, 
it would have been done a long time ago. So it does take some 
diligence, some dedication, and some perseverance to cut Government 
spending.
  Some in this body believe the majority here on the Republican side 
should just simply give in to President Clinton and continue the 
policies of spend now and worry later. I think most of us disagree. 
Certainly I disagree very strongly. We have to hold steadfast to our 
commitment to reduce discretionary spending and eliminate the deficit.
  The gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, recalled that over 
the years the CR is nothing new. This is not a new gimmick, a new gag, 
something we are trying to pull on our colleagues. In fact, for 2 
years in a row there were 13 bills. That is the total number of bills 
in the appropriations lineup. So, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority 
is acting responsibly.

  I heard the gentleman previous to me speak about not doing our job. 
Well, I tell my colleagues that we have done our job. The Constitution 
says we pass the bills and the President has to sign them. Now, the 
President will have an opportunity on Monday to do just that. It is his 
decision, it is his choice, and if President Clinton decides to veto 
the CR, a Federal Government shutdown will occur but it will be 
because, and only because he decided to place politics above the 
interests of the American people and the future of America's children.
  I say this is a proper CR. I say we pass it. I urge support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker needs to understand, we have not 
passed our bills. The President cannot sign appropriations bills we 
have not yet sent him, and 10 out of the 13 appropriation bills have 
not escaped the clutches of this Congress.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, no, I will not. I do not have the time.

[[Page H 12118]]

  For the gentleman to suggest that it is the President to blame for 
the Government not functioning, when the Congress has failed to pass 88 
percent of its appropriated items is, to me, baffling logic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate Veterans Day. 
Tomorrow we honor the service of our Nation's veterans to this country, 
but sadly, today, we are doing a grave disservice to those very same 
veterans. Instead of honoring our veterans with a 21-gun salute, as we 
should, the Republican leadership today is launching a three-pronged 
attack against our veterans.
  First, this continuing resolution, which we will vote on in just a 
few moments, locks in a $500 million decrease in VA health care below 
the President's request, a level for veterans health care even lower 
than that passed through cuts in the House budget. That is wrong and it 
is unfair. If anyone thinks that today's veterans are getting better 
health care than they deserve, then I encourage them to vote for this 
continuing resolution.
  The second attack today on our Nation's veterans is that we are 
increasing Medicare part B premiums for World War II veterans. What an 
odd way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of that war.
  The third attack of the Republican leadership on our veterans is that 
they want us to have a weekend recess while the U.S. Government is on 
the verge of being shut down Monday at midnight. Let me make that 
clear. We are on the verge of shutting down many services provided in 
terms of health care to our Nation's veterans. We are on the verge of 
shutting down VA regional offices that provide pensions and care for 
our veterans, many of whom are service-connected disabled. And while we 
are on the verge of shutting down that important service and services 
to our veterans, the Republican leadership wants us to take a recess 
this weekend. They want us to go home and make speeches.
  I have a message: the veterans are more interested in health care 
service than lip service. That is wrong.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], a distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, who will respond to 
those frivolous charges.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, many have asked what will happen to Federal 
employees. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and I asked the CRS to give us a paper on 
what has happened in the past.
  No Federal employee has ever lost a dollar. I want to read the text 
of a letter we received today from the Speaker and also the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole]. It said:

       We will be sending soon to President Clinton a bill to 
     continue funding for the Federal Government through December 
     1, 1995. Besides providing for government services, this bill 
     also funds Federal workers' salaries.
       If the President decides to veto this vital legislation to 
     keep government operating, the possibility exists that some 
     Federal workers may be furloughed. In the event that this 
     takes place, it is our commitment that Federal employees will 
     not be punished as a direct result of the President's 
     decision to veto funding for their salaries. Should this 
     happen, we are committed to restoring any lost wages in a 
     subsequent funding bill.
       Again, we want to reassure you that if the President vetoes 
     the continuing resolution and requires Federal workers to be 
     furloughed, we are committing to restoring any lost wages 
     retroactively.

  That has been the way we have handled it in the past and that is the 
way we will handle it this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter referred to for the Record:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: We will be sending soon to President Clinton a 
     bill to continue funding for the federal government through 
     December 1, 1995. Besides providing for government services, 
     this bill also funds federal workers' salaries.
       If the President decides to veto this vital legislation to 
     keep government operating, the possibility exists that some 
     federal workers may be furloughed. In the event that this 
     takes place, it is our commitment that federal employees will 
     not be punished as a direct result of the President's 
     decision to veto funding for their salaries. Should this 
     happen, we are committed to restoring any lost wages in a 
     subsequent funding bill.
       Again, we want to reassure you that if the President vetoes 
     the continuing resolution and requires federal workers to be 
     furloughed, we are committed to restoring any lost wages 
     retroactively.
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich,
       Speaker of the House.
     Bob Dole,
       Senate Majority Leader.

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I want 
to just say that I appreciate his efforts and those of the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] in working with the Speaker and the 
majority leader from the other body to make sure that this guarantee to 
Federal workers is going to be honored at the appropriate time, as it 
has in the past.
  I would note to my colleagues that the last time this happened, 
Federal workers were later paid, but it ended up costing the Federal 
Government $200 million per day for every day that they were 
furloughed. So we are here talking about saving money, but in the long 
term, if an agreement is not worked out mutually between the White 
House and Congress, the taxpayers suffer. That is not right.
  There is an old saying when the elephants fight, the grass gets 
trampled. We have 800,000 Federal employees in this case who are going 
to be not paid as a result of this. I think this letter will give them 
some guarantee down the road. I know my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are happy with this part of it as well.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I remember opening day here. Do my 
colleagues remember those grand speeches about how well-run the House 
was going to be? We were going to have good management here; that our 
work was going to proceed on time with open rules, with efficiency.
  What have we got? An abject failure for Congress to meet its 
responsibilities to do its work on time.
  Mr. Speaker, now we could solve this problem really quite simply: A 
clean extension of the authority of this Government to keep functioning 
after Monday. But, instead, a scene out of Lawrence of Arabia. Take no 
prisoners in the determination to raise Medicare premiums, a 
determination to throw this Government into the street in order to make 
sure that some of America's most vulnerable citizens have got to pay 
more.
  Thank goodness President Clinton has stood fast against this kind of 
moral and political bankruptcy and against this kind of mismanagement 
of the business of this country.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, for a number of days, we have heard people 
come to the floor and tell us if we would only take a mild, more 
bipartisan approach, we could, in fact, solve some of these problems. 
We have heard day after day that the Istook amendment was the problem 
on this bill; that if we could just remove the Istook amendment and 
take a bipartisan approach, that we could get these problems solved.
  Mr. Speaker, guess what? We solved the Istook amendment, and the very 
same Members who were concerned about the Istook amendment now come to 
the floor with other things. The fact is that they come to the floor 
now, and they have new complaints. The fact is that some Members just 
are not willing to be bipartisan. They want the President to veto the 
bill under any circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, we gave the President one continuing resolution. It was 
clean. Did that bring the White House to the negotiating table? No, 
they did nothing. The Speaker spent 25 hours on the plane and the 
President did not even talk to him.
  Mr. Speaker, the main complaint that we are hearing here today is the 
fact that they do not like a continuing resolution that is the lower of 
the funds of the two Houses. The White House has a complaint about 
that; our Democratic colleagues do.

[[Page H 12119]]

  We have had so many years of continuing resolutions around here. 
Continuing resolutions actually have traditions. This particular 
tradition is called the Michel formula. We worked it out on a 
bipartisan basis over the years. The lower of the two House funds. It 
is one of the great traditions, after 40 years of continuing 
resolutions out of Democrats. Now, they say they cannot take it. It is 
not something that ought to be included in this.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear the sound, yea, I hear the distinct sound of 
hypocrisy fogging the minds in this Chamber, and we are not seeing the 
kind of bipartisanship, because they simply do not want to do what has 
been done in the past when they were in the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, it is time, folks, to stop the 
excuses. It is time to stop the gimmicks. It is time to budget balance 
the budget. Start now. It would be nice to do it in a bipartisan way, 
but bipartisanship is not the intention of the minority.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker reminded me of an oft-
quoted quote of the late Will Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's 
ignorance that bothers me so much; it is them knowing so much that 
ain't so that is the problem.''
  Medicare is not the issue today. The fundamental question is: Why is 
it in a continuing resolution? That is a simple question. It is not 
like we could not get a unanimous vote to have a clean CR sent to the 
President that he will sign. That can be done, guaranteed 100 percent.
  The problem is we have spent 314 days not doing our work, as we have 
seen the chart time after time. Now, we are wasting 5 additional days 
in the same way we have wasted a good part of the previous 314 days, 
sending something to the President that the President has already said 
he would veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask simply: Why are we doing this? Why are we wasting 
a weekend? Why are we having to have our own staffs get ready to be 
furloughed? Why are we having the possibility of 800,000 of our Federal 
workers going on a furlough? For what reason? To send a message to the 
President?
  Mr. Speaker, the best way to send a message to the President is to do 
our work so we have got something to negotiate. And to those that say 
that is not an issue, what about those of us in this body that would 
like to work with somebody on appropriations bills, on the continuing 
resolution? Why do we have to have bloodhounds out finding out where 
you are meeting? Why, when we call the chairman of our own committee, 
they do not know what is going on? Because the Speaker has not told 
them yet what it is we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue is very clear. We can send a clean CR; we can 
spend this weekend working instead of speechmaking; we can get on with 
doing our work and we can quit being ugly to each other and the 
American people.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Civil Service.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I want to regress just to address one 
thing on what we did a few minutes earlier in passing an increase in 
the debt ceiling.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not get to mention it in my remarks, but 
basically, we heard they are dipping into these trust funds now; and 
the Secretary of Treasury says it does not matter what the Congress 
does; Even though they are in charge, we are going to steal from these 
funds no matter what.
  But, in fact, if we ran in the private sector our retirement funds in 
the fashion that this Congress operates, we would basically go to jail. 
It cannot be done that way in the private sector. The only difference 
here is that we have an unlimited resource and that is taxpayers' 
wallets.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk about why we are in this situation, and we 
are in this situation. Until October 1, this Congress was running under 
the past Congress' financial plan. We do not like that plan. We do not 
think that the solution to the problems of this country and this 
Congress is throwing more money at problems.
  Regarding education, for example, we spend billions of dollars and 
look at what we get. In my communities and in Florida, 50 percent of 
our students entering community college need remedial education. Is 
that success?
  In the area of environmental protection, they say we want to do 
damage. When we spent 85 percent of our money on attorneys' fees and 
studies in our Superfund, is that success?
  Mr. Speaker, because of this process, because they had their way to 
run this place and misused it until October 1, now we want to send more 
direction. We want to send some guidance on not just throwing money at 
these problems, but doing it with some wisdom, with some direction, 
with some results, and with some economy and some efficiency.
  Under current law, we cannot even drink the water in this community 
today. So, we are asking for changes, and we want to see them changed 
through this appropriations process.

                          ____________________