[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1947-H1958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET DOWN PAYMENT ACT, II
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 104-1474.
Amendment Offered by Mr. ISTOOK
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook: At the end of the bill
(preceding the short title), add the following new title:
Title V--Disclosure of Lobbying Activities by Federal Grantees
disclosure of lobbying activities by federal grantees
Sec. 5001. (a) Disclosure Requirements.--Not later than
December 31 of each year, each organization receiving a
Federal grant shall provide (via either electronic or paper
medium) to each Federal entity that awarded or administered
its grant an annual report for the previous Federal fiscal
year, certified by the organization's chief executive officer
of equivalent person of authority, setting forth--
(1) the organization's name and grantee identification
number;
(2) the amount or value of each grant (including all
administrative and overhead costs awarded), and the
description of each such grant and the name of the Federal
agency awarding such grant; and
(3) a good faith estimate of the organization's actual
expenses on lobbying activities in the most recent taxable
year.
(b) Exemptions.--This section shall not apply to an
individual or a State, local, or Indian tribal government.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Federal grant.--The term ``Federal grant'' means money
or real property that is paid or provided by the Federal
Government to any organization. Such term does not include
(A) any assistance described in section 6302(2) of title 31,
United States Code; (B) any amount paid under a procurement
contract described in section 6303(1) of such title; or (C)
and payment or assistance described in clause (ii), (iii),
(iv), or (vii) of section 6501(4)(C) of such title.
(2) Lobbying activity.--The term ``lobbying activity''
means any activity that is either (A) a lobbying activity
within the meaning of section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995; or (B) an activity influencing legislation
within the meaning of section 4911 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. Such term shall also include advocating the
election or defeat of any candidate for public office, or the
passage or non-passage of any ballot proposition.
(D) Public Accountability.--
(1) Public availability of lobbying disclosure forms.--Each
Federal entity awarding a Federal grant shall make publicly
available the grant application, and any annual report
provided under subsection (a) by the organization receiving
the grant.
(2) Accessibility to public.--The public's access to the
documents identified in paragraph (1) shall be facilitated by
the Federal entity by--
(A) placement of such documents in the Federal entity's
public document reading room;
(B) expediting any requests under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (the Freedom of Information Act), ahead of
any requests for other information pending at such Federal
entity; and
(C) submitting to the Bureau of the Census a report
(standardized by the Office of Management and Budget) setting
forth the information provided in such documents, which the
Bureau of the Census shall make available to the public
through the Internet.
(3) Withholding prohibited.--Records described in paragraph
(1) 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.
(4) Fees prohibited.--No fees for searching for or copying
such documents shall be charged to the public.
(e) Construction.--No provision of this section may be
construed to affect whether any organization is exempt from,
or subject to, tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(f) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall issue any regulations necessary to carry out
this section.
(g) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section shall take effect January 1,
1996, and apply thereafter.
(2) Prior activitaies not taken into account.--In applying
this section, only expenditures made after December 31, 1995,
in taxable years ending after such date shall be taken into
account.
(3) Annualization for partial taxable years.--in the case
of a taxable year that ends after December 31, 1995, and
begins before January 1, 1996, each of the dollar amounts
applicable under this section shall be proportionally reduced
to reflect the portion of such taxable year after December
31, 1995.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] is recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed, the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], is recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is at the desk is a very simple
disclosure amendment. It specifies that recipients of grants from the
taxpayers, groups that have asked for and received taxpayers' money in
the form of grants, should simply make an annual disclosure of the
total amount that they have spent in that year on lobbying. It is not a
detailed disclosure, it is not a restriction of any sort on how their
money is spent, it is not a restriction of any sort on eligibility. It
simply says that once a year they shall disclose the total amount they
have spent on lobbying.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I do not even know what the
[[Page H1948]]
gentleman's lapel button reads, but there is a House rule against
speaking while wearing a button other than a Member's button.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is responding
by taking his button off, and the Chair thanks the gentleman from
Mississippi for raising the point of order.
{time} 1545
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have had debate previously in this
Chamber about the activity of different groups that receive Federal
taxpayer's money, sometimes in hundreds of millions or tens of millions
of dollars, and their lobbying activity. Previously this body voted, on
two different occasions, passing legislation that would put some
commonsense limitations on the scope of lobbying by groups dependent
upon the taxpayer's money. The Senate also had a similar vote, adopting
that in principle as well.
This amendment, however, Mr. Chairman, does not go that far. It
simply says that groups that are recipients of taxpayers' money will
make a disclosure of the total amount once a year that they have spent
on lobbying. That will certainly help both sides in that debate, Mr.
Chairman. Some have said oh, they are not doing big time lobbying.
Others have said, yes, they are. But the problem is we have never
required them to report that, along with the other information grant
recipients report. This will give us the information so that both sides
may consider this issue based upon the facts. I urge its adoption.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I will stipulate at the outset this particular
rendition of this redtape-filled, burdensome, bureaucratic reporting
requirement on America's charities is less bad than the last time we
had this debate, but it does not make it good. To the contrary, this
will impose a scheme that will force charities and nonprofit and many
businesses, small businesses included, to keep a whole new set of
records about the activities of their employees and volunteers and
their expenditures in order to file a whole new set of annual reports
to the Federal Government, to Washington, letting us know what they may
be doing to try to influence legislation by their city councils, by
their county commissions, by their State legislatures, if they happen
to get some Federal money by way of a grant.
What in the world are we doing, Mr. Chairman? What is the evil here?
Who are the bad guys? What is the problem? It is already illegal to use
Federal grant moneys to lobby. That law works very well. There have
been no demonstrated problems. What is this amendment about? What will
the impacts be? Let me just give a couple of examples.
The Red Cross of America, trying to get the county that it may be
operating in to develop an emergency preparedness plan, will have to
keep track of the activities involved with that, so it can be part of
this report. The YMCA in your local community that gets a child care
grant, that is trying to get a citizen council to pass an ordinance
about child care, will have to keep track of its activities in order to
be accounted for in the reports required under this amendment.
The State chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, trying to toughen
DUI laws, will have to keep track of all of that so as to be able to
report under this amendment. Even, if Members can believe it, the local
electrical contractor getting an SBA technical grant will have to keep
track of its donations in connection with a referendum about a local
recreation district in order to be able to report under the
requirements imposed under this amendment.
What in the world are we doing? The current law works just fine. We
have a hard time figuring out why the folks that want to bring us less
burdensome regulation from Washington, less paperwork, would indulge in
this kind of activity.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I just want to
echo the gentleman's comments and associate myself with the gentleman's
remarks. I would say, For heaven's sakes, I thought we had a bipartisan
agreement, led by my Republican Party, that said the era of big
government was over. Here we have not a simple disclosure; it is a Big
Brother regulatory morass, and it does not even pass the commonsense
test.
This puts mindless bureaucracy in a position to demand reports from
the YMCA, your local church, the Red Cross, the charity groups helping
provide meals for senior citizens.
This is also completely contradictory to our stated and loudly
proclaimed purpose of encouraging the private sector and the charities
to shoulder a great share of welfare costs.
Again lets get back to reality and vote ``no'' on this senseless
bureaucratic, big government intrusion.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would certainly invite anyone that has been misled
that somehow this is some sort of regulatory scheme, frankly, to read
the bill. The only thing it requires is a listing of a good faith
estimate of the total amount they spent on lobbying that year. I think
it is kind of silly if somebody is thinking that this is a regulatory
scheme. It is very plain and simple disclosure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
First of all, I want to respond to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Skaggs]. He has said that the law that we have today is working fine.
As far as we know, Mr. Chairman, there has never been enforcement under
this law. As a matter of fact, in testimony before our subcommittee, we
heard of examples of groups receiving as much as 96 percent of their
money from the Federal Government in various grants. And what do they
do with most of that money? They turn right around, come back here, and
lobby for more.
This is pernicious, Mr. Chairman. It needs to stop. As a matter of
fact, our estimates are, it could be as little as $200 million. It
could be into the billions of dollars.
All this little amendment does is require disclosure. This is a
sunshine amendment. Members have probably heard this said before, that
the single most important antiseptic sometimes is just a little
sunshine. Only those who have something to hide fear sunshine. This is
a good amendment. It ought to have unanimous support. We ought to find
out exactly how much taxpayer money is flowing through some of these
special interest groups and being used to lobby for more taxpayer
money. It is a good amendment. We ought to have unanimous support.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have noticed a very
consistent lack of consistency on the Republican side. This bill
carries it out. We are worried that people will get Federal money and
use it to lobby us, so we have to ask them to report it, except we
exempt the vast majority of recipients. Contractors are exempted from
this.
Members will remember that the U.S. Senate, in a rare demonstration
of an ability to pass legislation, made a mistake last year, because
they passed a version of this and they included contractors, and Blue
Cross went into cardiac arrest. Fortunately, they waived their own
rules so they could be treated. But they then got into the CR, in a
very inappropriate legislative way, an amendment to that bill, and
contractors are not covered, and they are not covered here.
If people want to lobby us to build a B-2 and get more money, this
bill does not touch them. If people want to lobby us to build the space
station or to raise provider payments or do anything like that, this
bill does not touch them. Apparently, the new Republican view is if you
are engaged in charity, you are suspect.
We hear a lot on that side about how the private, voluntary sector
should do more, but they are treated as suspects, because if you are in
the private, voluntary sector and you get Federal funds lawfully to
carry out a program,
[[Page H1949]]
we are going to check up on you. But if you are a contractor and you
are going to get money and then lobby for more, if you are a housing
developer, if you are an aircraft contractor, if you are a medical
provider, if you are an HMO, you will get money and not be reporting.
What is the difference? The difference is that the people who do not
report get an enormously greater amount of money than the people who do
report.
This looks at the gnats and ignores the camels. By the way, the
tobacco companies are probably also included in the exemption, while we
are at it. So you penalize the voluntary sector, who you otherwise
like. When it comes to shifting important jobs from the Federal
Government, you are all for the voluntary sector. But here you
discriminate against them, because if this were not a problem, you
would not have given it to Blue Cross when they came for an exemption
and you would not continue to exempt the private contractors.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is a great debater, but he is greatly wrong
on one point. That is that on Federal contractors, the rules governing
Federal contractors are about a foot thick. So they exist under their
own special rules.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong support of the Istook amendment.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a simple disclosure requirement. In a
free society, the people have the right to know that their tax dollars
may be going to organizations that then lobby the Federal Government.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma would go a long
way in extending that basic right. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on
the Istook amendment.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, if the purpose for this amendment today
is to find out how much Federal money is being used to lobby by
nonprofit groups, I can give the answer right now. Zero. It has been
against the law here for years. The IRS has never had a single
complaint. We brought this up at committee meeting after committee
meeting, because we debate this thing once a week, almost.
The truth of the matter is that the only thing anybody could ever
come up with even a hint of a notion that somebody had misused money,
was that the beer wholesalers were mad at the Mother Against Drunk
Driving. This amendment tries to demonize the Girl Scouts, the Boy
Scouts, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, Catholic charities, and all
other groups out there who are doing work for the Federal Government.
It is absolutely nonsense that we waste our time on this.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what may have been represented to the
gentlewoman from New York, many nonprofit groups are major lobbyists.
They are required to make a disclosure of that through an IRS
regulation, which is adopted here. Many of their disclosures reveal
that they spend substantial funds. But this is talking about Federal
grantees, what they spend on lobbying.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Ehrlich].
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to hear the spin
on this one. We hear so much spin on this one, Mr. Chairman. When you
are acting in your capacity as a Federal grantee, you are covered under
this amendment. When you are not, regardless of your profit or
nonprofit status, everybody knows that. We have debated that on the
floor may times.
Mr. Chairman, this is full disclosure. Full disclosure is good
government. It is very interesting to hear arguments against full
disclosure and good government coming from the other side. This just
makes common sense. It is the first step in the right direction. I rise
in enthusiastic support for the Istook amendment.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Houghton].
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk against this
amendment. I have been in the foundation field all my life. I frankly
feel this is a smokescreen to curtail their activities. There is not a
single shred of evidence from the GAO, the Inspector General, any of
the accounting offices, or the IRS to say that any Federal money has
been used for lobbying, period.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. J.D. Hayworth.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is
interesting, as my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, noted, the
juxtaposition that has gone on here. In previous days when we have
debated this issue, statements from the other side have been that this
was an effort to restrict free speech.
Mr. Chairman, free speech is not free when you and I are paying for
it, when the taxpayers of this country repeatedly are called upon to
let folks come up here and lobby, and take that money and lobby for
more and more money. The fact is, this is a very simple requirement,
simply calling for disclosure; not itemization not red tape nothing of
the sort.
The fact is we know this lobbying has gone on. We know taxpayers'
dollars have gone for this, and this must stop, or at the very least,
as this amendment says, it should be accounted for and simply
disclosed. My colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, said it
eloquently. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let us let the sunshine
in and have disclosure of these funds.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment. As I have told my good friend, the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], this amendment discriminates against charities.
It puts the reporting burden on charities getting Federal grants, but
it does not put the same burden on businesses getting Federal grants.
From that, you can make your decision on that.
Why should one group, the charities, which help so many people, be
hurt by this amendment, and the other people who are getting Federal
contracts are not? It is not fair. Vote against it.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment discriminates against charities. It puts
a reporting burden on charities getting Federal grants but does not put
the same burden on businesses getting Federal contracts.
In his ``Dear Colleague,'' Mr. Istook says we should support his
amendment because, ``there is no data kept that covers all federal
grantees' lobbying.'' I ask the gentleman from Oklahoma whether there
are data on lobbying by those who receive Federal contracts?
He knows the answer is ``no.'' If he is really interested in
sunshine, why not have it fall on everyone.
Stop picking on our charities.
{time} 1600
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to remaining
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 3\3/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] has
4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
The Chair informs the Members that the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Staggs, representing the committee's position, is entitled to close
debate.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say again, you cannot now use
Federal dollars to lobby the Federal Government. That is existing law.
All the Istook proposition says is that to the Red Cross, the Boy
Scouts, the Farmers' Union, Alzheimer's Association, Girl Scouts, the
Epilepsy Foundation, churches and charities, you have got to go through
this paperwork joke. It says to the giant contractors who spend
billions of dollars in contracts with the Federal Government, no
Washington ink is exempt. You do not have to worry about it, big boys.
Mr. Chairman, I think the selectivity of this amendment is pernicious
and it
[[Page H1950]]
is cynical. It just seems to me that the best way to deal with this is
to keep an even playing field, turn down this amendment. I think every
Member of this House is a big enough boy or a big enough girl to handle
a tough lobbying job from the Boy Scouts without having this kind of
wasteful proposition intervene.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, there are always people that do not want to reveal to
the public how Washington works or how much people spend on trying to
lobby in Washington or anyplace else, especially groups that are
dependent upon the taxpayers for their money.
Contrary to what several speakers have claimed, there is no
distinction made in this simple disclosure legislation between a
business and a charity, none whatsoever. It says any organization that
receives a Federal grant will make the disclosure. The only exceptions
are for individuals and for entities of State, local and tribal
government.
There is no exemption for big business. There is no exemption for big
charity. There is no exemption for big anybody except for government
itself. Any group whatsoever, what are they afraid of? What is it they
are trying to conceal when they come to us and say, We want the
taxpayers' money but we just do not want to tell you how much we spent
on lobbying?
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just would inquire of the sponsor of this amendment,
what business is it of the Federal Government whether Regis College in
Denver, CO spends some of its funds lobbying Denver city council over a
land-use matter? Why should they have to report to Washington that kind
of activity?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, if a group does not
ask for taxpayers' money, this legislation does not mean beans to them.
It is only groups that ask to get in the taxpayers' pocket.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, why should a local college have to report
to Washington their local activities with their city council?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is wrong. The gentleman
indicates we do not want people to know how Washington works. I quite
disagree. I think the gentleman is a perfect example, and so is his
amendment, of exactly how Washington works: Protect the big boys and go
after the little people.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to praise the gentleman from
Oklahoma for bringing forth this disclosure amendment. In fact, the
amendment does not provide additional requirements for information to
be disclosed, but consolidates a lot of disclosure requirements that
are already there for these grant recipients in various current
legislation. The more important issue in this debate, I think, is what
direction do we want to go in?
Are we going to continue to have the taxpayers subsidizing large
lobbying outfits here in Washington, or are we going to build a record
and continue the progress that we started last fall in protecting the
taxpayer interest, in saying if you want to be a lobbying organization,
you can lobby, that is your right, but do it with your own dime and on
your own time.
This amendment moves in that direction. There are many other things
that should be done to strengthen that, to say lobbying groups cannot
use loopholes in the lobbying bill to allow affiliates to take the
money and then come in and lobby on their own. These matters are not
covered here today in this amendment. Those we will have to do in
future legislative activity.
This amendment today begins that process of saying let us fully
disclose so that the American taxpayer knows groups who are receiving
taxpayer money, how much lobbying they do, when they do it, what they
do with that money, so that the taxpayer can hold them accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It is straightforward. It is
plain vanilla. It affects one group of organizations and only one:
groups that have made up their mind that they want financing from the
taxpayers. If they do not want taxpayers' money, this amendment does
not affect anyone. If they want taxpayers' money, it simply says give
us the bottom line. The details are not even covered here. Just give us
the bottom line once a year, how much did you spend on lobbying?
Mr. Chairman, they are already required to keep records of this. If
they were, for example, a 501(c)(3), they are already required by the
IRS to keep records of it. They are already subject to auditing. They
do not want people to know. There are groups that receive tens of
millions and hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers, that
are some of the major lobbying groups in Washington, and they try to
claim we are letting the big boys off.
If the group is a big boy, it does not matter if it is a charity or
business. This amendment treats it the same. It says, If you want
taxpayers' money, tell us one simple thing: How much are you spending
on lobbying?
Then if the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] thinks the results
show that it is not a problem, he can use that as his evidence. If it
shows more things with problems, that too can be evidence. Let us get
simple and to the facts.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is no trivial matter. Contrary to the
representations made by the proponents of this, it will require all
affected organizations, large and small, charitable and for-profit, to
set up a new system of recordkeeping in order to be able to make that
good faith estimate, because without accounting for the time and money
spent by both paid and volunteer staff, things that now are not covered
by any Federal requirement, they will not be able to make that report,
however simply it may be.
I again ask my colleagues, why in the world is it the business of the
U.S. Government to require a private university getting an NSF grant to
report to us, to Washington, about their efforts to work with the local
country commissioners over a matter involving transportation in their
area? Why is it of concern to Washington if a veterans' group that
happens to be getting a job training grant wants to lobby their State
legislature for a veterans' cemetery? Why should we require them to
keep track of those activities and report to us?
This amendment would create a paperwork burden, tons of redtape in
addition to filing the report that would be required, again, because
these organizations would have to account for the time spent by their
employees and volunteers beyond what is now required under the Internal
Revenue Code. It will bring tens of thousands of businesses, charities,
and schools under new reporting requirements. Forty-seven thousand
grants go to businesses, 43,000 grants to private colleges and
universities. Again, what business is it of ours what they do at the
State and local level?
This is just the first step, as the gentleman from Maryland's
comments suggested, in the ongoing assault that the advocates of this
amendment wish to make on the free-speech rights of many Americans and
their organizations. The original amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma has been divided into parts, and this happens to be the
first part. But we should say no to this part lest we have to deal with
the others.
This proposal comes to us from the folk who promised to lighten the
regulatory burdens, imposed from Washington, to reduce Federal
paperwork. This amendment comes to us from the people who expect
private charity to try to pick up the slack as the Federal Government
does less.
Mr. Chairman, give me a break. More importantly, give them a break
and vote ``no.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to
the Istook amendment to H.R. 3019. This amendment is
[[Page H1951]]
designed to send a chilling effect to groups who are attempting to
express their opinions on the important issues confronting our Nation.
While some proponents of this amendment argue that it is just a
disclosure requirement. Many of us know the real motivation of this
amendment.
The amendment requires organizations to list each Federal grant that
they receive, a description of each grant, the name of the agency
awarding the grant, and an estimate of lobbying expenses. Why is this
information necessary? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote
against this amendment and stand up for the true meaning of our
democratic principles which encourages free speech, encourages citizens
to participate in government, and the right to impact public policy.
This amendment is a bad amendment. It is also mean spirited. I urge
my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211,
noes 209, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 52]
AYES--211
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunn
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Bevill
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clay
Collins (MI)
de la Garza
Durbin
Green
Hayes
Johnson (SD)
Myers
Stokes
{time} 1629
Mr. LoBIONDO and Mr. LIPINSKY; changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. PORTER, LONGLEY, and EVERETT changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1630
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 104-474.
amendment offered by mr. crapo
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAPO: At the end of the bill
(before the short title), add the following new title:
TITLE V--DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Deficit Reduction Lock-box
Act of 1996''.
SEC. 502. DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX LEDGER.
(a) Establishment of Ledger.--Title III of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
``deficit reduction lock-box ledger
``Sec. 314. (a) Establishment of Ledger.--The Director of
the Congressional Budget Office (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ``Director'') shall maintain a ledger to
be known as the ``Deficit Reduction Lock-box Ledger''. The
Ledger shall be divided into entries corresponding to the
subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations. Each entry
shall consist of three parts: the `House Lock-box Balance';
the `Senate Lock-box Balance'; and the `Joint House-Senate
Lock-box Balance'.
``(b) Components of Ledger.--Each component in an entry
shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection
(c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
``(c) Credit of Amounts to Ledger.--(1) The Director shall,
upon the engrossment of any appropriation bill by the House
of Representatives and upon the engrossment of that bill by
the Senate, credit to the applicable entry balance of that
House amounts of new budget authority and outlays equal to
the net amounts of reductions in new budget authority and in
outlays resulting from amendments agreed to by that House to
that bill.
``(2) The Director shall, upon the engrossment of Senate
amendments to any appropriation bill, credit to the
applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balance the amounts of
new budget authority and outlays equal to--
``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the
amount of new budget authority in the House Lock-box Balance
plus (ii) the amount of new budget authority in the Senate
Lock-box Balance for that bill; and
``(B) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the
amount of outlays in the House Lock-box Balance plus (ii) the
amount of outlays in the Senate Lock-box Balance for that
bill.
``(3) Calculation of Lock-Box Savings in Senate.--For
purposes of calculating under this section the net amounts of
reductions in
[[Page H1952]]
new budget authority and in outlays resulting from amendments
agreed to by the Senate on an appropriation bill, the
amendments reported to the Senate by its Committee on
Appropriations shall be considered to be part of the original
text of the bill.
``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`appropriation bill' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of a fiscal year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth
in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 313 the following new item:
``Sec. 314. Deficit reduction lock-box ledger.''.
SEC. 503. TALLY DURING HOUSE CONSIDERATION.
There shall be available to Members in the House of
Representatives during consideration of any appropriations
bill by the House a running tally of the amendments adopted
reflecting increases and decreases of budget authority in the
bill as reported.
SEC. 504. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 602(a) ALLOCATIONS AND
SECTION 602(b) SUBALLOCATIONS.
(a) Allocations.--Section 602(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Upon the engrossment of Senate amendments to any
appropriation bill (as defined in section 314(d)) for a
fiscal year, the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) or (2)
to the Committee on Appropriations of each House upon the
adoption of the most recent concurrent resolution on the
budget for that fiscal year shall be adjusted downward by the
amounts credited to the applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-
box Balance under section 314(c)(2). The revised levels of
budget authority and outlays shall be submitted to each House
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that House
and shall be printed in the Congressional Record.''.
(b) Suballocations.--Section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Whenever an adjustment is made
under subsection (a)(5) to an allocation under that
subsection, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
of each House shall make downward adjustments in the most
recent suballocations of new budget authority and outlays
under subparagraph (A) to the appropriate subcommittees of
that committee in the total amounts of those adjustments
under section 314(c)(2). The revised suballocations shall be
submitted to each House by the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations of that House and shall be printed in the
Congressional Record.''.
SEC. 505. PERIODIC REPORTING OF LEDGER STATEMENTS.
Section 308(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Such reports shall also include an up-to-date tabulation of
the amounts contained in the ledger and each entry
established by section 314(a).''.
SEC. 506. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
LIMITS.
The discretionary spending limits for new budget authority
and outlays for any fiscal year set forth in section
601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
adjusted in strict conformance with section 251 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
shall be reduced by the amounts set forth in the final
regular appropriation bill for that fiscal year or joint
resolution making continuing appropriations through the end
of that fiscal year. Those amounts shall be the sums of the
Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balances for that fiscal year, as
calculated under section 602(a)(5) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. That bill or joint resolution shall
contain the following statement of law: ``As required by
section 6 of the Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act of 1995, for
fiscal year [insert appropriate fiscal year] and each out-
year, the adjusted discretionary spending limit for new
budget authority shall be reduced by $ [insert appropriate
amount of reduction] and the adjusted discretionary limit for
outlays shall be reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of
reduction] for the budget year and each out-year.''
Notwithstanding section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, section 306 of that Act as it applies to this
statement shall be waived. This adjustment shall be reflected
in reports under sections 254(g) and 254(h) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
SEC. 507. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This title shall apply to all
appropriation bills making appropriations for fiscal year
1996 or any subsequent fiscal year.
(b) FY96 Application.--In the case of any appropriation
bill for fiscal year 1996 engrossed by the House of
Representatives after August 4, 1995 and before the date of
enactment of this bill, the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Committees on Appropriations and the
Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and
of the Senate shall, within 10 calendar days after that date
of enactment of this Act, carry out the duties required by
this title and amendments made by it that occur after the
date this Act was engrossed by the House of Representatives.
(c) FY96 Allocations.--The duties of the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office and of the Committees on the
Budget and on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
pursuant to this title and the amendments made by it
regarding appropriation bills for fiscal year 1996 shall be
based upon the revised section 602(a) allocations in effect
on August 4, 1995.
(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``appropriation bill'' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of a fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr.
Crapo] is recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, before we begin the debate, I ask unanimous
consent to modify the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Idaho?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this is the third time that we will have had the
lockbox provision before us. It is one of the most critical reform
issues with regard to the budget that will face in this Congress. It
makes sure that when we make cuts on the floor of this House to the
discretionary budget, that those cuts are real and that they are not
then shifted into other spending programs.
Mr. Chairman, we have debated this many times. I suspect that we will
continue debating it until it becomes law. I encourage Members to stay
the course on the lockbox. We are going to have a lot of people here in
support of it today, but the point that must be recognized is we will
stick with this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed to the amendment?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson].
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. On
the face of it, the lockbox proposal is an appealing idea. As
proponents describe it, it is a way to ensure that the savings produced
in spending cut amendments to appropriations bills are used to reduce
the deficit, not to increase spending for other purposes.
But what the procedure actually does is to reduce the amount of funds
available to the Committee on Appropriations by the amount saved by
spending cut amendments adopted on the House and Senate floor. Thus, it
is a tool to force total discretionary spending below the level that
Congress has already decided through its budget resolution and through
statutory caps as the appropriate level for the coming fiscal year.
So the question we should be considering is do we need to adopt an
additional budget procedure to force deeper cuts in discretionary
spending than we are already on the path toward achieving?
For those of us who think that we are already making more than enough
cuts in discretionary spending, for those of us who oppose the
substantial cuts in education and environmental protection that would
result from this bill, and for those of us who are worried about future
cuts in those areas, as well as cuts in transportation, housing,
science and health research, national parks, crime control and many of
the other programs that comprise the discretionary spending category
that will be imposed if we eventually agree to a plan to balance the
budget, it makes little sense to endorse a procedure that will likely
lead to even deeper cuts and fewer opportunities to restore funds to
these very programs.
Even Members who do wish to cut discretionary spending further cannot
dispute the fact we already have an extremely effective process in
place for
[[Page H1953]]
controlling that kind of spending. Those controls have enabled Congress
to restrain the growth of discretionary spending to such an extent that
its share of GDP has declined from 10.5 percent in 1980, to 8.2 percent
in 1994, and if the Congress complies with the current discretionary
spending caps that are in the budget resolution that was adopted last
year, that spending will decline to just 6.8 percent in 1998. Domestic
discretionary spending will decline from 5.1 percent of GDP in 1980,
down to 3.1 percent in 1998.
Last, Mr. Chairman, if our goal is to establish procedures that will
help us to reduce the deficit, this measure obviously aims at the wrong
target. Like other procedures Congress has considered in recent years
to apply further controls to discretionary spending, such as expedited
rescission, line-item veto, separation of emergency and non-emergency
appropriations, the lockbox proposal addresses the one part of the
budget that is already the most strictly controlled.
If our budget process is inadequate in any way, it is that it
provides comparatively little control for the mandatory spending, the
entitlement programs, that are driving the growth of the Federal budget
deficit.
If we are ever to succeed in eliminating deficit spending, Congress
has got to change its focus with respect to budget process matters.
Rather than devoting our time and effort to devising ways to apply more
controls to the part of the budget that is already strictly controlled,
we should devote that same kind of effort to addressing other parts of
the budget that are under less effective control.
In addition, the Appropriations Committee will have to operate under
a significantly more complicated process for figuring out how much
funding they have to work with. And, this new procedure is likely to
generate more conflict between the Senate and the House, and between
Congress and the President, toward the end of each year's
appropriations season when new, reduced allocations of spending are
parcelled out to the appropriations subcommittees to accommodate
whatever lockbox savings are finally achieved.
Popular as the lockbox proposal is, I urge my colleagues to consider
carefully whether Congress needs a new procedure that increases the
complexity of the budget process, and the difficulty of reaching final
agreement on appropriations bills, and that focuses our deficit-
reduction efforts on an area of the budget that is already contributing
more than its fair share to the cause.
Mr. Chairman, I urge members to vote ``no'' on the Crapo amendment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, who has been so gracious to be a strong supporter of this
measure and bring the amendment forward.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, in spite of my great admiration and
respect and friendship for the greatest chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations that this body has ever known, I rise in the strongest
possible support for this legislation.
Do my colleagues know why? I have been here for 18 years, not quite
as long as the gentleman who is the chairman. In those 18 years, except
for perhaps the retiring gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], I
guess I have offered more amendments on this floor successfully passed
than any other Member. Most of them were cutting amendments, even
cutting sacrosanct things like foreign aid, which was unheard of. And
lo and behold, over the 18-year career, all of the money was
reprogrammed and respent.
This puts a stop to it today. This means when Jerry Solomon, or the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Foley, or the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Crapo, or any others, offer an amendment, if we do not offset it with
other spending, that means that money is going to deficit deduction.
We are going to get this deficit under control one way or another.
This is the best possible way to do it. I urge all Members to get over
here and vote for this. We will make sure the Senate passes it, and, by
golly, we will have some fiscal responsibility around here.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make the budget process more user
friendly for Members who wish to offer spending cut amendments on the
floor of the House and Senate. When a spending cut amendment is
adopted, savings from that amendment will be credited to deficit
reduction.
This amendment is identical to the bill H.R. 1162 which passed the
House under an open rule on September 13, 1995 by a bipartisan vote of
364 to 59. A similar amendment was also adopted on August 2, 1995 as an
amendment to the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1996 with 373 Members supporting that amendment. With such
vast support for the amendment last year it follows that it should once
again be included with these funding bills.
This bill reported by the Rules Committee represents a truly
bipartisan effort culminating only after extensive consultation with
CBO, OMB, CRS, the Government Reform and Oversight, Appropriations and
Budget Committees.
The Crapo amendment contains a process flexible enough for both the
Appropriations Committees to set spending priorities and for individual
Members to debate substantive policy and spending issues during floor
consideration of appropriation measures.
Members will now truly be able to go to the floor and offer spending
cut amendments and actually be reducing the deficit.
I strongly urge my colleagues to once again support this bill by
passing the Crapo amendment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman], who has also been a strong supporter and
worked with us from the outset on this matter.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the mother of lockbox, I rise in strong
support of the Crapo lockbox amendment. I hope it will be enacted into
law before I become a grandmother.
As we have heard from the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the
lockbox has passed three times by overwhelming margins, and yet it
languishes in the other body. During last year's appropriations
debates, the House passed floor amendments totaling more than $350
billion, and those dollars did not go to deficit reduction, they were
reprogrammed.
I commend Mr. Crapo for including in his amendment the language
offered by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and myself to the
House-passed lockbox bill that captured outyear savings.
Our amendment was supported by the Concord Coalition and the National
Taxpayer Union, among others. It ensured that spending cuts in
multiyear programs result in a reduction in the outyear discretionary
spending caps, as well as the present year spending caps.
Let me explain why such a provision is critical. On average, 95
percent of an agency's personnel funds are outlayed in the first fiscal
year. By contrast, only 3.1 percent of funds for constructing military
housing are outlayed in the first year. In the case of the Army, 12
percent is outlayed in year 2, 37 percent in year 3, and 24 percent in
year 4.
Thus, without an outyear savings provision, cutting $100 million out
of fast-spending program like personnel may translate into a
discretionary spending cut of $95 million. But a successful floor
amendment cutting $100 million from a slow-spending program like Army
family housing construction only reduces discretionary spending by $3.1
million in the first year. The remaining $96.9 million is not captured
and, under our current House procedures, remains available for other
spending programs.
Lockbox ensures that a cut is a cut. And, the language identical to
the Harman-Stenholm amendment ensures that a cut is a full cut, not a
cut based on a program's outlay spending rate for the first fiscal
year.
Mr. Chairman, the time has come. Deficit hawks, please vote for the
bipartisan Crapo, Brewster, Foley, Harman, Largent, Schumer, Stenholm,
et al, amendment. There is no more time for delay.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley], who is one of the strong fighters in the freshman
class.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, first congratulations to the gentleman from
Idaho [Mr. Crapo], in advance, because this will be successful. For the
first time, Congress is going to face the fact that, when we cut
spending from programs, it is not going to be siphoned off and sent
over to other spending programs. Much like Americans all across our
land have Christmas club accounts, vacation accounts, savings accounts,
[[Page H1954]]
the lockbox will truly give us a mechanism by which when we cut
wasteful spending on the floor or in committee, that wasteful spending
will actually go for deficit reduction.
I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This has been a
great opportunity for us to work, Republicans and Democrats, for fiscal
responsibility. Again I applaud the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo]
for his leadership on this initiative and to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] for strong words of encouragement all the way.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], another of the freshmen so strong in support of
this matter.
(Mr. LARGENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that I believe we
have a moral imperative to balance the budget for the future of our
children, and I believe that every spending reduction we can make is a
positive step in that direction.
When Members go to the floor and cast votes for cutting amendments,
they believe they are doing just that, cutting spending. In fact, as
many of the newer Members of Congress have recently discovered, these
cuts do not really go for deficit reduction but are reprogrammed and
spent on other projects. This is outrageous. When 200 Members of the
House of Representatives vote to cut spending, spending should be cut,
not reprogrammed. That is why the lockbox is so important. To lock in
the savings that the House passes and ensure that the savings go to
deficit reduction, we must enact the lockbox now and not a day later.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer].
{time} 1645
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I mean
many of the reasons have been enumerated, and that is when a cut is
made, the cut should go to cutting. I have been against many of the
very draconian measures that cut the budget, but this one makes
rational sense. It allows us to, when we get up there and say we are
cutting money, make sure that that money stays cut. It has had broad
bipartisan support over the years, and I would hope that this body
adopts it.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel like the actor Bill Murray in that
movie ``Groundhog Day''; we keep doing this again and again and again
and again. We are 5 months into the fiscal year. We are supposed to
have the appropriations bills done. Yet we have a huge portion of the
budget still stuck, and this bill represents, in fact, the 10th
continuing resolution, the 10th. We tried to do this 10 times to keep
the Government open, and a couple of times the Congress has failed and
the Government has closed.
Mr. Chairman, I have voted for some versions of the lockbox, I have
even sponsored some of the versions. But the fact is today that our
highest priority ought to be to finally, halfway through the fiscal
year, get last year's fiscal business passed. We already have three
versions of this amendment sitting in the Senate deader than door
nails. Why is it necessary to add a fourth when our principal purpose
is simply to get the Government continued for the rest of the fiscal
year?
I have a very pragmatic reason to suggest my colleagues not vote for
this amendment. It is just another item that slows down the process,
makes it less likely that this bill is ever going to become law, makes
it less likely that we are going to get out of the way and see to it
that the local school districts do not have to lay off teachers, that
Superfund sites, which are shut down now because of lack of funding, do
not continue to stay shut down.
We need to get on with the principal business of the public, which is
to get this business out of the way so we can turn to new issues. That
is what we ought to be doing. And yet we keep chewing the cud over and
over and over again. It seems to me this is just one additional item
that makes it more difficult for the bill to pass.
If my colleagues want to pass lockbox, do it someplace else where it
is not going to slow down our basic purpose.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the lockbox
amendment that can save the dollars. We should lock it away and not
spend it somewhere else, and I would like to hook onto what the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was just mentioning, that it seems
to me that ultimately what this is really about is making it more
likely that we will ultimately balance the budget, which is what this
whole exercise is all about.
That is why I am in strong support of this amendment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], who has also been one of our strong supporters
from the outset.
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Crapo lockbox amendment.
As we all know, getting a majority of this House to vote for a cut in
Federal spending is not easy. Then, it becomes even more frustrating
when that so-called cut is later spent on another program in an
appropriations bill.
This amendment would make our cuts count by directing these savings
to deficit reduction--not additional spending. I consider this one of
the most substantive changes to how Congress manages its money in
decades.
This House voted more than six to one last fall to accept the
lockbox. Let us be honest, and make sure that a cut is really a cut.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Crapo lockbox amendment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] has 4 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, as we conduct this debate,
that we understand exactly what the lockbox does because there has been
a lot of discussion about whether we need it or whether we do not. The
way this bill works is that when we vote on the floor of the House to
cut any program or project, in the current law that money, the program
or project is cut, but the money allocated for spending in the budget
for that program or project remains allocated, and it is simply respent
on other measures, measures which are obviously of a lower priority or
they would have been put in place of the spending in the first place.
So all we see is a reshuffling of the spending, but never a reduction
of the actual spending so that we get deficit reduction, and those who
watch across this country on C-Span or in any other capacity and listen
to the debates on this floor day after day as we talk about the need to
balance the budget, hear us discuss that every day, they see us vote on
amendments that would cut spending every day, but when we are all done,
the spending is not reduced because of the budget system in which we
now operate.
This lockbox would create a mechanism whereby when we vote to cut
spending on any particular program or project, if the majority of this
Congress says that spending should be cut, then in reality that
spending is allocated to deficit reduction rather than being shifted
into new funds. Now if someone wants to bring an amendment and say I do
not want deficit reduction, I simply want to cut spending from this
program and put it into that program, that is perfectly allowed. This
simply says that when we debate here on the floor and tell the American
people that we are cutting spending in order to protect our budget,
that when we are done with the day that is what happens.
Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple and straightforward principle. It
is one when American people understand it they cannot quite see why the
Congress has to even have this kind of a system because it does not
make sense that we
[[Page H1955]]
could debate to cut spending and then, after we were done, have the
spending simply shifted over into other spending priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, in the last 14 months, as chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, I have been fighting these budget
battles, and I have great sympathy for what the gentleman is trying to
accomplish with his amendment. He wants to cut down on the amount of
discretionary spending from the U.S. Congress. He is right, and we
agree, and we have been working with him and jointly with the other
body to do exactly that, and we have had enormous success.
The fact is nondefense discretionary spending over the years under
Democrat control has just gone up, up, up, up, and up. In fiscal year
1994, it was up to $237 billion, in fiscal year 1995, they had it up to
$246 billion, and had they retained control, it would have kept going
on up. But we have scaled it back.
We had the rescission bill, and, no, I will not yield now. I will be
happy to yield at the end of my statement.
We had the rescission bill that cut back fiscal year 1995 to $230
billion. In 1996, right now, we are down to $223 billion. In 1997,
according to the budget agreement that passed the House and Senate, we
will be down to $219 billion.
We are making inroads in spending. We are attempting to accomplish
what the gentleman is trying to do. But what I am concerned about is
that if the gentleman's amendment passes, and I am sure it probably
will pass because it is such an easy vote for so many Members, it will
tie our hands and make us incapable of negotiating with the Senate or
with the White House to reach agreements on bills that should pass in
the interests of the American people.
In fact, in this bill there is funding for Bosnia, there is funding
for flood relief in the Northwest, and some of the very constituents
that are going to be tremendously benefited by programs in this bill
might not have been had the lockbox been invoked on this bill because
we might not have been able to include this funding.
Now, I know that Members say, well, it is important that we cut
spending, that we reduce it. I have made that argument ad nauseam for
the last 14 months. But, my colleagues, the problem is not in the
discretionary budget because we are getting the discretionary budget
under control. The discretionary budget, however, is only one-third of
the $1.6 trillion that the U.S. Government spends every year. Two-
thirds is interest on the debt, Social Security, welfare, Medicare,
Medicaid, and all the other entitlements, and unless we get control on
the entitlements, we are never going to balance the budget. We can talk
about a balanced budget by the year 2002, but if we do not get an
agreement between the House and the Senate and the President of the
United States to tackle that two-thirds of the budget, we are never
going to accomplish anything.
Now, I find it ironic that two Members who took the well, at least
two, possibly three; no, there are three that I can identify, and I am
not going to embarrass them; three Members that took the well actually
voted last week to increase entitlements. Now if discretionary spending
is not the problem, and yet our colleagues want to shackle our hands to
negotiate and reach an agreement that benefits the American people, and
if mandatory spending is the problem, one would think Members would
want to be consistent, and I know the gentleman who sponsors this
amendment is consistent because be voted against those entitlements
last week. But other Members who have spoken here did not. What they
did was to take two programs which are funded by discretionary spending
and say there is not enough money going into those programs. We have
got to make them mandatory. We have got to make them entitlements, and
they converted them, and the aggregate cost of those two programs in
the farm bill, passed on Thursday last, is $4 billion over 7 years.
Now, my colleagues, if we are going to vote for the lockbox, fine.
But think about what we did last week. If my colleagues voted for that
farm bill, if my colleagues voted to convert discretionary spending to
mandatory, in effect they have contributed to the real problem of the
deficit, and they are doing absolutely nothing but screwing the system
up with the lockbox.
Now, I happen to think that the lockbox is well intentioned, but as
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations I will tell my colleagues
it is very difficult to satisfy the many Members of the far left, the
far right, and the people in the middle in this House, let alone work
with the people in those same spectrums on the Senate side and
negotiate with the White House, who does not like anything we want to
do and wants to veto this bill. We have got a tough problem, and the
lockbox only makes it tougher. It restricts our ability to negotiate
with these other varying factors and, in essence, says we cannot do
anything.
Now, our function in Government is not to sit around and do nothing.
The gentleman from Maryland, and, if I have time, I will yield to him,
he represents a lot of Federal employees. If this bill does not pass,
we do not come to negotiated agreement with the Senate and the White
House, we are going to shut down Government.
Do not make it worse. Let us defeat this.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, they say three times can be the charm. Well,
today the House will, for the third time this Congress, approve an
important budget tool to make sure that spending cuts we agree to
actually translate into savings for the American people. We hope this
action will be the charm in getting this budget reform done. As Members
know, this House voted for the deficit reduction lockbox by a huge
margin of 373 to 52 on August 4, 1995, as an amendment to the Labor-HHS
spending bill. We voted for the lockbox once again, as a freestanding
bill, by a vote of 364 to 59 on September 13, 1995. There is no doubt
that if it were up to the clear majority of this House, lockbox would
be the law of the land today. Of course we know that we must also
convince our friends in the other body to concur--and that's where the
holdup has been. And so, in sending them lockbox legislation as part of
this omnibus spending bill, we will affirm for a third time that we
really do mean business in getting lockbox in place for the upcoming
appropriations cycle. While I know some of our colleagues on the
Appropriations Committees still have concerns about this lockbox, I
remind them that this measure has been thoroughly vetted through
subcommittee and full committee hearings, the Rules Committee markup,
and careful consultation with Appropriations and Budget Committee
staff. We believe that we have an effective product that still allows
enough flexibility for the appropriators to do the enormously difficult
job we ask of them. I commend Mr. Crapo for his efforts to reach the
goal of ensuring that a cut is really a cut; that when we say we are
saving money by spending less in appropriations bills we follow through
on that commitment. I hope my colleagues will join me once again in
supporting this deficit reduction tool.
{time} 1700
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded vote
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 329,
noes 89, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 53]
AYES--329
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
[[Page H1956]]
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--89
Abercrombie
Baker (CA)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Callahan
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Livingston
Lowey
Markey
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Packard
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Rogers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Saxton
Skaggs
Skeen
Stark
Studds
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Vucanovich
Walker
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Bevill
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clay
Collins (MI)
Durbin
Green
Hayes
Johnson (SD)
Myers
Radanovich
Stockman
Stokes
{time} 1718
Messrs. LEWIS of California, KNOLLENBERG, FRANK of Massachusetts, and
GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LOFGREN, and Messrs. MOORHEAD, PASTOR, FIELDS of Louisiana,
MARTINEZ, and PICKETT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3019) making
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make a further downpayment
toward a balanced budget, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 372, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The amendment printed in section 2 of House Resolution 372 is
adopted.
Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment? If not, the Chair
will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think that is safe to say.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3019 to the
Committee on Appropriations with the instruction that the
Committee report the bill back to the House forthwith with
the following amendment.
On page 386, line 15, strike all after ``tion'' through
``11'' on page 387, line 5.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we have already indicated
the problems in this bill for education and for environmental cleanup.
The focus of this motion to recommit is quite different.
Mr. Speaker, after passage of the Veterans' Administration
appropriation bill through the House, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
was not exactly bashful in indicating his displeasure with some of the
funding cuts and policy recommendations adopted by the House. As a
citizen of a free country and a congressionally confirmed member of the
President's Cabinet, he was completely within his rights and was simply
executing part of his duties as the administration's principal advocate
for veterans.
But apparently that demonstration of free speech was too much for
those who did not agree with his statements. The result in conference
was language sharply limiting the Secretary's travel budget and
reducing a number of personnel positions available to the Secretary.
This bill contains those provisions.
The message is apparently very clear: Disagree with the majority who
run this house on a veterans' issue and you will pay the price.
I might add this is not an isolated incident. The Secretary of the
Interior has also been treated in a similar manner. He too has been
very vocal in expressing his concerns about some of the provisions in
the appropriation bill for Interior. His punishment was to see his
office budget reduced by an additional 10 percent because he spoke out.
This motion is very simple and it applies only to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. It takes the gag off the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs by restoring his office budget and restoring his travel budget.
He has a right to talk to the country about his concerns about some of
the cuts that were provided in this bill or any other bill that affect
veterans and veterans' health care.
Now, I want to make clear the objection to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs is not based on the amount of money he spent. His predecessor,
Mr. Derwinski, a good friend of ours, his highest travel budget was
$198,000 in any one year. His lowest travel budget was $131,000.
Secretary Brown's today, his highest travel budget is $131,000, equal
to Mr. Derwinski's lowest, and his lowest travel budget was $105,000.
The bill before us would cut that travel budget to $50,000.
Now, there is absolutely no reason why the Secretary should not be
able to move around the country. There is no reason why he should not
be able to move around the country doing his job.
[[Page H1957]]
I want to point out that the intent of this amendment is supported by
the veterans' service organizations like the Disabled American
Veterans, the American Legion and the VFW. I will read one paragraph
from the DAV letter:
The Secretary will be forced to curtail other activities which
directly support our Nation's sick and disabled veterans. Specifically,
these spending restrictions will have an adverse effect upon the
ability of the Office of Public Affairs to assist with the
participation in direct patient care activities such as disabled
veterans winter sports clinic, national veterans wheelchair games,
golden age games and the creative art festival. These events,
individually and collectively, represent a true therapeutic and
rehabilitative milieu unmatched in the traditional medical setting.
I would urge support for the amendment. Take the gag off the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this very procedural motion to recommit. It raises really a phony
issue. The White House does not care a whit about this, never talked to
us, never raised it, does not care.
Mr. Chairman, veterans are much better off than they were before.
They got a $400 million increase in health benefits over what they had
last year. They are getting $38.4 billion out of this package, $16.9
billion of which goes to health care, so the veterans are doing well.
You know what the other side is upset about? They are upset because,
yes, we have cut the Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy Planning, and some administrative expenses because
Jesse Brown put veterans' benefit paychecks in envelopes, sent them to
the veterans themselves with a notice, with a political message in it.
{time} 1730
Now, free speech is not free if it is paid for by the taxpayer, and
it is put in an envelope by the Secretary that included veterans
benefits checks and sent out as a political speech to the American
people. That has got to stop.
This is a phony issue. Vote ``no'' against the motion to recommit and
vote for the bill. Let us not close the Government. This is a good
process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
I know a number of my colleagues have angst about the idea of voting
for this bill, and I frankly, at least for those who voted for the
Republican plan to balance the budget, have a little bit of difficulty
understanding that angst, because this omnibus proposal keeps us on
track. It moves to terminate 175 programs, most of which under the
stewardship of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who did an
outstanding job, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
In addition, I think there was some concern about the contingency
funds, which, frankly, I had concern about. The contingency funding is
taken care of.
In an effort to be reasonable with the administration, if, in fact,
we can achieve a major reconciliation bill, then we give some
additional flexibility to the administration, but it is no program that
allows them to willy-nilly go out and spend more money. The simple fact
of the matter is----
point of order
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. OBEY. The matter before us is the motion to recommit. Is the
gentleman not required to confine his remarks to that motion?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, they did not tell me that.
I would just say the gentleman from Wisconsin obviously has a well-
thought-out proposal but, in fact, does not get to the heart of the
matter and distracts us from the need to stay on course in our effort
to balance the budget and to keep this portion of the budget on track,
and I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, he always does a fine
job here on the floor. He has done a lot of research, but he
fundamentally does not support the idea that we should terminate 175
programs and live under the cap.
So I would say to my Republican colleagues this is a chance to keep
the momentum going. Let us come to the floor. Let us reject the well-
thought-out motion from the gentleman of Wisconsin, get on with passing
the bill and keep the revolution alive.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 228, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No 54]
AYES--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--228
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
[[Page H1958]]
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--21
Baker (LA)
Bevill
Bryant (TX)
Chabot
Chapman
Clay
Collins (MI)
Dornan
Durbin
Ford
Green
Harman
Hayes
Hoke
Johnson (SD)
McCrery
McDade
Myers
Stockman
Stokes
Williams
{time} 1749
Mr. ENSIGN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GIBBONS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas 209,
nays 206, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 55]
YEAS--209
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McDade
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NAYS--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--17
Baker (LA)
Bevill
Bryant (TX)
Chabot
Chapman
Clay
Collins (MI)
Duncan
Durbin
Green
Hayes
Johnson (SD)
McCrery
Myers
Stockman
Stokes
Taylor (NC)
{time} 1806
Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________