[House Report 104-328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-328
_______________________________________________________________________


 
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2586, THE TEMPORARY INCREASE IN 
                        THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT

                                _______


  November 8, 1995.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 258]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 258 by a record vote of 9 to 4, report the 
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution 
be adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration in the House, 
without intervening point of order, of H.R. 2586, the 
``Temporary Increase in the Statutory Debt Limit'' under a 
modified closed rule. The rule orders the previous question 
without intervening motions except those specified in the rule. 
The rule considers as adopted the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means and now printed in the bill as well 
as those amendments referenced in the report of the Committee 
on Rules.
    The rule provides one hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
    The rule provides for one motion to amend by the chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee, which shall 
be considered as read and shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. The rule also provides for one motion to amend by 
Representative Walker of Pennsylvania or his designee, which 
shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 40 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
    The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, which if 
it includes instructions may only be offered by the Minority 
Leader or his designee. Finally, the rule provides that during 
consideration of the bill, no question shall be subject to a 
demand for division of the question.

                            committee votes

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(2)(B) of House Rule XI the results 
of each rollcall vote on an amendment or motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and against, are 
printed below:

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 248

    Date: November 8, 1995.
    Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Public 
Debt Limit.
    Motion By: Mr. Moakley (en bloc).
    Summary of Motion: Make in order two amendments: (1) an 
amendment by Rep. Gibbons providing a long-term increase in the 
public debt limit; and (2) an amendment by Rep. Payne (VA) 
extending the debt limit to the later of Dec. 12, 1995, or 30-
days after the President signs the reconciliation bill.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 8.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; Waldholtz--Nay; 
Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; Hall--Yea; Solomon--
Nay.

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 249

    Date: November 8, 1995.
    Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Public 
Debt Limit.
    Motion By: Mr. Frost.
    Summary of Motion: Strike the amendments self-executed to 
adoption by the rule as well as the amendment by Rep. Walker on 
regulatory reform.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 250

    Date: November 8, 1995.
    Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Public 
Debt Limit.
    Motion By: Mr. Hall.
    Summary of Motion: Make in order the amendment by Rep. 
Gekas providing for an automatic debt extension of the public 
debt limit.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 251

    Date: November 8, 1995.
    Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Public 
Debt Limit.
    Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.
    Summary of Motion: Make in order an amendment striking the 
provisions in the bill prohibiting disinvestment of Government 
trust funds.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 252

    Date: November 8, 1995.
    Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Public 
Debt Limit.
    Motion By: Mr. Frost.
    Summary of Motion: Strike the provision of the rule 
allowing the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to 
offer an amendment.
    Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Nay; Dreier--Nay; Goss--Nay; 
Linder--Nay; Pryce--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; McInnis--Nay; 
Waldholtz--Nay; Moakley--Yea; Beilenson--Yea; Frost--Yea; 
Hall--Yea; Solomon--Nay.

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 253

    Date: November 8, 1995.
    Measure: Rule for the consideration of H.R. 2586, Public 
Debt Limit.
    Motion By: Mr. Quillen.
    Summary of Motion: Report the rule favorably to the House.
    Results: Adopted, 9 to 4.
    Vote by Member: Quillen--Yea; Dreier--Yea; Goss--Yea; 
Linder--Yea; Pryce--Yea; Diaz-Balart--Yea; McInnis--Yea; 
Waldholtz--Yea; Moakley--Nay; Beilenson--Nay; Frost--Nay; 
Hall--Nay; Solomon--Yea.

   summary of amendments modifying the text of h.r. 2586, debt limit 
          (considered as adopted by the adoption of the rule)

    1. Solomon (NY)--Committing the President and Congress to 
enacting in calendar year 1995 legislation to achieve a 
balanced budget, as scored by CBO, by fiscal year 2002, and 
affirming the intent of Congress not to enact a further 
increase in the public debt limit until the President has 
signed such legislation. (Printed in the Rules Committee report 
on the rule)
    2. Medicare Coverage of Certain Anti-Cancer Drug 
Treatments. (Printed in the Rules Committee report on the rule)
    3. Habeas Corpus Reform--Text of Senate-passed habeas 
corpus reform provisions of S. 735, the anti-terrorism bill. 
(Printed in the Rules Committee report on the rule)
    4. Chrysler (MI)--Compromise language on House-passed 
provisions from reconciliation legislation dismantling the 
Department of Commerce. (Printed in Congressional Record)
                                ------                                


     amendment made in order by the rule for separate consideration

    1. Walker (PA)--Compromise between House and Senate 
regulatory reform legislation (printed in the Congressional 
Record), non-amendable and debatable for 40 minutes equally 
divided between the proponent and an opponent.

             the amendments modifying the text of h.r. 2586

    (1) At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 4. COMMITMENT TO A SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET.

    (a) With the enactment of this Act the President and the 
Congress commit to enacting legislation in calendar year 1995 
to achieve a balanced budget, as scored by the non-partisan 
Congressional Budget Office, not later than the fiscal year 
2002.
    (b) The Congress affirms that it will not enact legislation 
providing for a further increase in the permanent statutory 
limit on the public debt unless the President signs into law 
the balanced budget legislation referred to in subsection (a).
    (2) At the end of section 4, add the following:

SEC. 5. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF CERTAIN ANTI-CANCER DRUG TREATMENTS.

    (a) Coverage of Certain Self-Administered Anticancer 
Drugs.--Section 1861(s)(2)(Q) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(Q)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(Q)'' and inserting ``(Q)(i)''; and
          (2) by striking the semicolon at the end and 
        inserting ``, and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(ii) an oral drug (which is approved by the Federal Food 
and Drug Administration) prescribed for use as an anticancer 
nonsteroidal antiestrogen for the treatment of breast cancer or 
nonsteroidal antiandrogen agent for the treatment of prostate 
cancer;''.
    (b) Uniform Coverage of Anticancer Drugs in All Settings.--
Section 1861(t)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(t)(2)(A)) is 
amended by adding (including a nonsteroidal antiestrogen or 
nonsteroidal antiandrogen regimen)'' after ``regimen''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1834(j)(5)(F)(iv) of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(j)(5)(F)(iv)) is amended by striking 
``prescribed for use'' and all that follows through 
``1861(s)(2)(Q))'' and inserting ``described in section 
1861(s)(2)(Q))''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of the 
enactment of this section.
    (3) At the end of section 5, add the following:

                     TITLE I--HABEAS CORPUS REFORM

SEC. 101. FILING DEADLINES.

    Section 2244 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an 
application for a write of habeas corpus by a person in custody 
pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation 
period shall run from the latest of--
          ``(A) the date on which the judgment became final by 
        the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of 
        the time for seeking such review;
          ``(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an 
        application created by State action in violation of the 
        Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, 
        if the applicant was prevented from filing by such 
        State action;
          ``(C) the date on which the constitutional right 
        asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, 
        if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme 
        Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on 
        collateral review; or
          ``(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the 
        claim or claims presented could have been discovered 
        through the exercise of due diligence.
  ``(2) The time during which a properly filed application for 
State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect 
to the pertinent judgment or claim shall not be counted toward 
any period of limitation under this subsection.''.

SEC. 102. APPEAL.

  Section 2253 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:

``Sec. 2253. Appeal

  ``(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under 
section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be 
subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the 
circuit in which the proceeding is held.
  ``(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in 
a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to 
another district or place for commitment or trial a person 
charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or 
to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal 
proceedings.
  ``(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 
certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the 
court of appeals from--
          ``(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 
        in which the detention complained of arises out of 
        process issued by a State court; or
          ``(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 
        2255.
  ``(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under 
paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial 
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
  ``(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) 
shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the 
showing required by paragraph (2).''.

SEC. 103. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

  Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is 
amended to read as follows:

``Rule 22. Habeas corpus and section 2255 proceedings

  ``(a) Application for the Original Writ.--An application for 
a writ of habeas corpus shall be made to the appropriate 
district court. If application is made to a circuit judge, the 
application shall be transferred to the appropriate district 
court. If an application is made to or transferred to the 
district court and denied, renewal of the application before a 
circuit judge shall not be permitted. The applicant may, 
pursuant to section 2253 of title 28, United States Code, 
appeal to the appropriate court of appeals from the order of 
the district court denying the writ.
  ``(b) Certificate of Appealability.--In a habeas corpus 
proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 
process issued by a State court, an appeal by the applicant for 
the writ may not proceed unless a district or a circuit judge 
issues a certificate of appealability pursuant to section 
2253(c) of title 28, United States Code. If an appeal is taken 
by the applicant, the district judge who rendered the judgment 
shall either issue a certificate of appealability or state the 
reasons why such a certificate should not issue. The 
certificate or the statement shall be forwarded to the court of 
appeals with the notice of appeal and the file of the 
proceedings in the district court. If the district judge has 
denied the certificate, the applicant for the writ may then 
request issuance of the certificate by a circuit judge. If such 
a request is addressed to the court of appeals, it shall be 
deemed addressed to the judges thereof and shall be considered 
by a circuit judge or judges as the court deems appropriate. If 
no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of 
appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request addressed to the 
judges of the court of appeals. If an appeal is taken by a 
State or its representative, a certificate of appealability is 
not required.''.

SEC. 104. SECTION 2254 AMENDMENTS.

  Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
  ``(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf 
of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 
court shall not be granted unless it appears that--
          ``(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies 
        available in the courts of the State; or
          ``(B)(i) there is an absence of available State 
        corrective process; or
          ``(ii) circumstances exist that render such process 
        ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
  ``(2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be 
denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the 
applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of 
the State.
  ``(3) A State shall not be deemed to have waived the 
exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the 
requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives 
the requirement.'';
          (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
        subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
          (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following 
        new subsection:
  ``(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 
a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was 
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the 
adjudication of the claim--
          ``(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 
        involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 
        established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 
        Court of the United States; or
          ``(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 
        unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 
        evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'';
          (4)