[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.

                          ____________________