Statement of Administration Policy: H.J. Res. 115 - Second Continuing Resolution, FY 1996

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsor: Livingston (R), Louisiana Hatfield (R), Oregon)

This statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.J. Res. 115, the Second Continuing Resolution, FY 1996.

If H.J. Res 115 were presented to the President as it passed the House, he would veto it. The Administration would support a simple extension of the current continuing resolution to give Congress time to finish its work.

By late September, with the October 1 start of fiscal 1996 just days away. Congress had sent the President only one of the 13 appropriations bills that he could sign into law. As a result, the President and Congress agreed on a continuing resolution to keep the government running through November 13. That continuing resolution was designed to extend the normal operation of government until Congress could complete its work; the measure did not prejudge final budget decisions for fiscal 1996, nor did it attempt to enact new policies into law.

Though fiscal 1996 began well over a month ego. Congress is still way behind on its work. At this point, the President has been able to sign only two appropriations bills into law — the fewest number of bills signed into law by this date since 1987. Clearly, Congress needs to pass another continuing resolution to keep the government running as it tries to finish its work.

Rather than draft a proper continuing resolution, in the mold of the current one, the House has passed a continuing resolution that contains extreme provisions, including severely restrictive funding levels. These reductions would reduce funding for education, the environment, technology and other critical programs. Moreover, H.J. Res. 115 uses a measure that should simply extend current operations as an opportunity to make new policy in areas where significant disagreement exists.

One provision of H.J. Res. 115, the so-called "Istook amendment," would launch a broad attack on the right to free speech of such organizations as the Red cross and the Girl Scouts; it would limit their ability, and that of other organizations that receive Federal funds, to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings. The Justice Department believes that the provision does not pass constitutional muster because it imposes unconstitutional penalties for the exercise of free speech rights. Among other things, the provision would impose restrictions and penalties on organizations that were involved in advocacy during the year prior to passage of the legislation — thereby violating the fundamental principle that prevents the government from retaliating retroactively against persons or organizations that have exercised free speech rights.

A second provision would raise the contribution that beneficiaries must pay for Medicare Part B premiums to $53.50, effective in January of 1996.

For all of these reasons, the President would veto H.J. Res. 115 if it were presented to him as it passed the House.