Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H879-H882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2880, THE BALANCED BUDGET
DOWNPAYMENT ACT

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2880) and that it shall be in order at any time to
consider the bill in the House; that the bill be debatable for not to
exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by myself and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; that all points of order against
the bill and against its consideration be waived; and that the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to the final
passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not
intend to object, I simply want to take this reservation in order to
observe that, unlike so many episodes which the public has seen lately
in the Congress where divisions among us have caused great turmoil and
consternation both on the floor and throughout the country, both sides
of the political aisle have worked very hard and very intensively with
a great deal of involvement of people on both sides of the aisle in
order to assure that we can overcome major differences and keep the
Government open.
I would simply, in continuing my reservation, make the point that
there are some items in the proposition which the gentleman from
Louisiana is about to bring to the House with which I have strong
disagreement; for example, the reduced level of funding for education
and a number of other items in the bill. But I think the overriding
need of the country is for us to overcome our differences, or at least
manage to live with those differences, especially since this is a CR of
short-term duration, with the exception of a couple of items in the
bill.
So I would simply say that I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Louisiana for the way he has handled this difficult task. I am pleased
to say that the White House, while they certainly do not agree with
every provision in this bill, as I do not, they have signed off on this
as a short-term compromise. I very much appreciate both the way they
have handled things and the way the gentleman from Louisiana and other
Members on both sides of the aisle have handled this.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield to me, before he
withdraws his reservation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I

[[Page H880]]
want to say that I appreciate his statement, and I want to thank the
gentleman for his cooperation over the last few days.
They have been hectic; this has been an incredibly tense negotiation,
but the fact is that with the help of the gentleman, both sides of the
aisle have come together, along with Members of the other body, and
have crafted a compromise to keep the Government open for the next 45
days, one which meets the needs of satisfaction or of best desires of
no side completely satisfactorily, but one which represents, I think,
the finest of legislative endeavor in that we are able to understand
each other's differences and reach agreement in some fashion of
compromise, not only among ourselves, but with the White House.
Frankly, in view of where we started, I am somewhat amazed.

But I think this also provides the seeds for a long-term solution
which will provide us a continuity of Government throughout the rest of
the year. At least it is a first step. We will have to judge that when
this continuing resolution or this targeted appropriation cycle is
over. But at any rate, I want to thank the gentleman for his
cooperation and yield back to him.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Continuing my reservation, I would simply observe that we do not have
to endorse every provision in this proposal in order to endorse the
fundamental idea that the Government ought to stay open to continue to
provide services to our tax-paying citizens.
I would simply observe that this has been an immense amount of
consultation with a tremendous number of people. I think this morning
we were at draft number 32. I do not know what number it is now, but
whatever number it is, I am glad it is the last one.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object, but I would like to ask the chairman if he would tell me,
not having had the opportunity to read the entire bill, does the bill
contain any of the provisions of the line-item veto in this bill? Does
it contain those provisions?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I would advise the
gentleman that this Balanced Budget Down Payment Act, I, as we have
called it, has no language whatsoever dealing with the line-item veto,
but that the line-item veto, as the gentleman does know, has passed the
House of Representatives and in a much different form has passed the
U.S. Senate, and is awaiting resolution in conference.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I would say to the
gentleman that that conference not having reached a resolution, many of
us here are concerned that in the middle of the 1996 process, as this
body and the other body continue to identify areas of spending with
which we disagree and seek to reduce or eliminate funding, we believe
that it is just as important to allow the President to identify funding
to attempt to cut as well through the line-item veto.
I would simply note that on Tuesday evening, the President called
upon the Congress to pass the line-item veto, at which a supermajority
of both Democrats and Republicans gave him a standing ovation. I would
call upon this body to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I will not object, because I do understand the
importance and necessity of keeping the Government operating, of having
this continuing resolution. But if we are going to continue week after
week or month after month passing additional continuing resolutions, I
would certainly hope that the majority would include the line-item veto
provisions in the next continuing resolution so that we could give that
to the President and allow him to do the same thing we are attempting
to do in reducing spending.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield further, I appreciate
the gentleman's statement. I especially appreciate him not making an
objection.
I would point out to the gentleman that as a long-standing proponent
of the line-item veto myself, I look forward to a speedy resolution of
that issue in the conference, but that I would, as chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, rather not include it in the
appropriations process, because I think it is a little astray of what
we are trying to do. We often find that we take on a little bit more
than we can carry, and then we try to chew it and have to spit it out.
So, I appreciate the gentleman's position. I certainly agree in
principle with his position, and I hope that that matter will be
resolved before long.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's position is certainly
understandable. The concern, however, is that it certainly was a major
platform in the Contract With America. It passed this body with
overwhelming support. The President supports it, yet the 1996
appropriation process is virtually through, and the line-item veto does
not apply to it. So we would like to develop a way to get it applicable
to the 1996 process, and that is the purpose for trying to put it on
the appropriations bills or continuing resolutions so that we could
involve the President, give this President the authority now to start
cutting that kind of pork-barrel spending.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield one last
time, I would simply point out that he is absolutely on point. However,
I might add that, as the gentleman knows, for this year and in years
past we have continued to appropriate within the discretionary budget
limits which are being reduced more and more and more. The fact is that
this Congress, since the 104th Congress was sworn in, has saved the
American taxpayer, within the discretionary portion of the budget, some
$20 billion under what we would have spent in original fiscal year 1995
level, and another $22 to $30 billion below that level in fiscal year
1996 already.
So we are on that glidepath toward a balanced budget, but the
gentleman is correct. A line-item veto would enhance our ability to do
so, and I appreciate his position.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, and, if I
may, engage the distinguished chairman in some discussion.
I hope I do not have to object, and I certainly commend everybody
involved in what seems to be some progress in establishing or
reestablishing a tradition of some bipartisan give and take and
inclusiveness in this difficult process.

{time} 1730

I have been relying on a three-page document prepared, I assume, by
the Committee on Appropriations staff that summarizes this 60-plus page
bill which we have just gotten, and therefore need to be able to rely
on the summary.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of things here concerns me. Down at the bottom
of this first page, the summary recites essentially a 75-percent floor
on certain specific items, including, for instance, the Advanced
Technology Program. While earlier in the summary it is recited as the
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations, we will be at the level that had
been agreed to in the conference that was ultimately vetoed. My concern
is the possible inconsistency or conflict between those provisions.
Is the body to understand that that 75-percent floor supersedes
contrary provisions that were in the conference report, which as to ATP
was at a much lower level?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a 75-percent cap as
opposed to a floor. With that acknowledgment, I would say that the
provisions of this particular legislation that we pass today do not
affect programs that were addressed in targeted appropriations or in
previous appropriations bills except for a few instances.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, it is not that
point, but the apparent internal inconsistency between the 75-percent
cap and the other language in this legislation that prescribes funding
levels for the Commerce Department in accordance with the earlier
rejected conference report or the earlier vetoed

[[Page H881]]
conference report. In that conference report, for instance, the ATP
program was funded at substantially lower levels than the 75 percent. I
want to make sure the 75 percent controls.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
this funding would be more than what was in that conference report. The
gentleman is correct that while we provide for the conference levels of
funding for most programs, several of those programs which were
terminated or slotted for termination, such as the one the gentleman
mentioned, would be brought up to a 75-percent cap by virtue of this
legislation.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I appreciate the
gentleman's comments.
Mr. Speaker, just in trying to reconcile the text of this 60-plus
pages with the summary, I notice that, for instance, on page 18-E of
the bill, we address the question of a partial repeal of a provision
recently enacted in the Lobbying Reform Act that is not mentioned in
the summary.
I am just wondering if the chairman would indicate whether there are
any other changes in permanent law similar to this one, which I happen
to be familiar with, which are included in the bill but not itemized in
the summary, so that Members can be fully informed of permanent law
changes?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I
would say to the gentleman the only ones that were inserted were done
so at the last minute in the process of negotiations between the House,
Senate, and White House. There are a few, and I intend in my opening
statement to identify those. Frankly, they are not of major
significance, but I will touch on them.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, continuing on my reservation and with
respect to this particular point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned
about the approach that we are taking in correcting this problem with
section 18 of the Lobbying Reform Act that this Congress recently
passed and the President signed. I think Members have become aware of
the difficulty in implementing that particular provision with respect
to some of the organizations organized under section 501(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code and the prohibitions in section 18 against any
such organization that receives a contract or a loan or award from the
Federal Government engaging in any lobbying activities.
This bill, as it is presented to the House, is a partial remedy to
the problem that we now know is created by section 18, in that it
deletes contracts from the scope of the section 18 prohibition.
It seems to me that with the 140,000-plus 501(c)(4) organizations,
that include all manner of civic organizations, housing associations,
organizations of local governments, a lot of different organizations
that may get from time to time a Federal grant or loan or contract,
that to address only the ability of contracts of Government and not
these other 501(c)(4)s to be able to fully engage in their legitimate
rights to talk to us abut problems facing the Nation or in legislation
is unfortunate, and that we simply ought to deal with the entire scope
of the difficulties that exist under section 18.
As it is, we are responding to the understandable concerns and
legitimate concerns, particularly of the Blues and some HMO's who are
in a particularly difficult situation. I understand that, and we ought
to solve their problem. But we ought to solve the entire problem, not
just the problem of people who have a lot of resources and a lot of
wealth and influence around this place. We should get at all of the
501(c)(4) issue.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I would only say to the gentleman there are lots of problems we could
have dealt with in this bill. We dealt with those most exigent problems
we felt needed to be dealt with in order to resolve anomalies that,
frankly, were hanging out there that would cause great hardship had we
not addressed them.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions in this area. The gentleman well
knows that this problem was brought to our attention when the lobbying
bill was moving through the Senate, as a matter of fact, and the
cosponsors on the Senate side, Senator Simpson and Senator Craig, had
attempted to correct it at that time.
It is not that we are responsive to a narrow segment of those who are
affected by the lobbying bill. It is that this was an area which is in
clear conflict because of the unique history of this particular group.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations were classified as 501(c)(4)'s
back in the 1930's. Usually if you are classified under the Internal
Revenue Tax Code as a 501(c)(4), for example, you are tax exempt in
your activities. Ironically, in 1986 in the tax bill Congress placed
the selfsame organizations in a taxable category, so they are now
classified as 501(c)(4)'s, but they are, in fact, paying taxes, so they
do not get a tax-free benefit from the classification.
In addition to that, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations have
been carrying out on a contractual arrangement the financial management
servicing for Medicare, 40 percent of the recipients of the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program under the U.S. operation, CHAMPUS, and
a number of other areas.
This is a real problem faced now by virtue of a letter, and I would
like to place it in the Record, and if you have not seen it, I want to
share it with the gentleman from Colorado, dated January 16, in which
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, rightly, in trying to carry
out the law as written, has sent out notices asking a series of
questions, ``Please fax immediately to your contract specialist those
who are contractees with FEHBP,'' and question one, ``Is the
organization tax exempt?'' This group would say no.
Question two, ``Is the organization considered a 501(c)(4)?'' This
group would say yes.
What we have here is a situation in which with full knowledge we went
ahead and passed a law that would put these people in a very narrow
timeframe, in significant jeopardy of continuing to run the Medicare,
CHAMPUS, and FEHBP program.
This group means to comply with all of the lobbying disclosure and
reporting requirements. This is not an attempt to create a loophole. If
people are receiving grants, then that is what we want to focus on. If
they are receiving awards, we want to focus on it. But our failure to
understand the complexity of the history of certain organizations and
the interaction that would be triggered immediately and our inability
to carry out needed functions brought about this technical amendment.

I would tell the gentleman if he identifies other groups that fall in
the category of 501(c)(4) and are, in fact, taxable and would stop a
significant portion of the Federal Government's ongoing contractual
obligations and does not fit into this particular amendment, we may
have to look at another one. This one is real, it is now, and it needs
to be fixed. I commend the chairman for understanding that this is a
real problem. A technical correction solves it.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I appreciate the
validity of all of the points the gentleman has just made, but I think
he draws the boundaries a bit narrowly on the organizations in this
country that have legitimate reason to be concerned.
As it happens Blue Cross/Blue Shield is in a position to follow
legislation here very closely. They did that. Their lawyers and
lobbyists were able to identify this problem very quickly. But we are
realizing the consequences of legislating in haste and without
appropriate hearings and examination of consequences with regard to
section 18 of the Lobbying Act, which was added in the Senate without
any hearings and, even as it was working its way through the process,
realized it was going to have unintended and unfortunate consequences.
We only are awaiting the further experience of organizations like the
National Association of Counties, the National Rifle Association, which
I believe has contracts or grants from the Federal Government, and some
of their activities, to see exactly how intrusive and violative of the
rates of other

[[Page H882]]
501(c)(4) organizations to participate fully in the political life of
the country. So it will not just be that nicely drawn narrow category
the gentleman identified, but I think we need to be concerned more
broadly than that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say I fully agree with
everything that the gentleman has said with respect to this issue. In
my view, what you have here is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the
grease, which means that the Blues and a couple of other parties are
being taken care of because they have raised legitimate objections
about how this impacts them. But I think this Congress is remiss in not
recognizing there are many other people who may not be as big, but
whose proximity to them will be just as big because of the language,
which ought not be in the law in the first place.
So I think this is a case here of this proposition being better than
the situation that would exist without it, but not nearly as good as it
ought to be, because it ought to include everybody who has a similar
problem.
I would hope that, upon reflection, the Congress would recognize it
has made a mistake in limiting it in the future and to correct it. But
for now, I think even though I agree fully with the gentleman, I did
not think that that objection would be sufficient to justify bringing
down this entire proposition.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the
letter that I indicated from the Senate was dated November 17. It has
been more than 3 months. It has been almost a month since the law went
into effect. Does the gentleman from Colorado have in his possession a
letter from any other organization indicating a failure to carry out a
contractual obligation with the Federal Government because of this
legislation?
Mr. SKAGGS. No.
Mr. THOMAS. Do you have a letter?
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, it has only been
a couple of weeks since this law became effective. I think the
gentleman assumes a level of alacrity across the country which is
unrealistic in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, having made these points, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object,
I would like to make inquiry, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
and the gentleman from Wisconsin. I know that the work that was done
was to assure that we did not shut the Government down. I think we need
to accept that responsibility.
Can the gentleman help me as I try to answer some of the questions
regarding this impact on my constituents? There is a section on page 10
that indicates a prohibition against no new grants and it lists health
and human services, and particularly refers to National AIDS Program,
homeless service grants. There is a whole litany, the youth gang
substance abuse.
My inquiry is that this does not shut them down; what you are saying
is that they cannot activate, and I want this to be my understanding,
not put words in your mouth, they cannot activate any new grants, but
they can carry on their business? Is that my understanding?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct. Actually it
goes a little bit beyond that. They can actually engage in providing
grants up to 75 percent of previous monthly levels. So the fact is they
cannot only service old grants, but they can engage in current activity
up to 75 percent of previous limits.

{time} 1745

This is a change put in the bill in just the last few minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. They can carry on current business and
provide new grants at a 75-percent level that would include youth
gangs, substance abuse, child welfare.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. There is a lengthy list, and we will make that a part
of the Record.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would appreciate that. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I noticed in
reference to NASA, as the gentleman well knows, they are engaged now in
a series of space explorations and research, and, in fact, were
preparing for such during the Government shutdown. There seems to be on
page 2931, and I have no problem with assisting any of our sister
States, some transfer of dollars, $10 million to Mississippi, but that
is not going to impair any further, ongoing, present explorations that
are proposed now for NASA in the coming months and impinge on any
safety factors for NASA?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield further, she is
correct, and this measure will free up an additional $40 million for
NASA; so they are actually better off because of this provision.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to
object, I am so concerned and I have two last questions.
There was an Executive order recently to deal with increased
utilization of the Border Patrol coming from the State of Texas and
obviously concerned with drug influx and other problems. The Department
of Justice not being funded, do we have concern, or is there any way
that that will not be negatively impacted, or are we in jeopardy?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield further, I would
advise the gentlewoman that the Department of Justice is funded at the
conference level, and, in fact, most law enforcement authorities were
already provided for in the targeted for appropriation under the bill
that we passed early in January. So actually the Border Patrol would
have been taken care of by the last bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If we pass the CR, but as you have
indicated, that is protected and covered?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Not only covered through the term of this bill, but
through the end of the fiscal year by virtue of what we did earlier.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, lastly there were several
riders in the VA-HUD bill, and, of course, we do realize that even
though we are concerned and want to make sure that the Government stays
open, there are still levels of disagreement on many of these pieces of
legislation and, obviously, the appropriation process. Are these riders
still in this CR that we might have some disagreement, particularly
relating to the environment and relating to HUD in particular?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield, I would advise the
gentlewoman that the VA-HUD bill is funded at the conference level, but
under last year's terms and conditions. So the restrictions and
guidance language in the conference report would not apply.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Would not be included?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Right.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Louisiana. I think that we are all trying to move to the point of
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.

____________________