[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.

                          ____________________