congressional record › 104 › crec › 1995 › 10 › 26 › crec-1995...1995/10/26 · payers....

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

H10849

House of RepresentativesVol. 141 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1995 No. 167

The House met at 9 a.m.The Chaplain, Rev. James David

Ford, D.D., offered the following pray-er:

Help us, gracious God, to see otherpeople as they truly are with their ownideas, with their own traditions, andwith their own integrity. We admitthat we too often portray the characterof our neighbor and the motivation ofothers in ways that do not serve thecommon good and we ought to admitour shortcoming. Lead us, O God, tothink with clarity, to acquit ourselveswith honor, and to respect all peoplefor that is a mark of our humanity andthe stamp of Your creation.

In Your name we pray. Amen.

f

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam-ined the Journal of the last day’s pro-ceedings and announces to the Househis approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.

f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentlemanfrom Indiana [Mr. ROEMER] come for-ward and lead the House in the Pledgeof Allegiance.

Mr. ROEMER led the Pledge of Alle-giance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, and to theRepublic for which it stands, one na-tion under God, indivisible, with lib-erty and justice for all.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. There will be ten 1-minutes on each side.

f

CUBAN EMBARGO

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and wasgiven permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker,one of our colleagues has openly chal-lenged the United States embargoagainst the Castro regime by announc-ing that he has accepted an invitationby Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro to visitCuba in December with a group of Mas-sachusetts businessmen.

I have asked the Treasury Depart-ment to deny my colleague, and hispartners in crime, permission to travelto Cuba, for this trip clearly does notfall under the permissable guidelines.The presence of business leaders onthis trip is an attempt at lobbying forthe end of the trade embargo againstCastro.

While some try to forge ties with thetyrant, the repression in Cuba goesunabated. While Castro fooled theUnited States media once again thisweek independent journalist OlanceNogueras Roce was jailed in a high se-curity prison in Cuba for trying to aska question at the Ministry of ForeignRelations.

The obvious attempt to violate theembargo on Cuba by these UnitedStates businessmen is a clear test ofthe Clinton administration’s resolve toenforce the law against Castro. ThePresident must step up to the chal-lenge by denying them visas.

f

CIVIL WAR

(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Islandasked and was given permission to ad-dress the House for 1 minute and to re-vise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.Speaker, today the Republicans arestarting the second civil war. The sec-ond civil war between the States andStates rights.

What the Republicans are proposingin their block grant approach is a raceto the bottom between the States. It isgoing to be a race between the States

on how unfriendly the States can be tothe poor, the disabled, and our elderly.

By taking away the entitlement pro-gram for our senior citizens and poorchildren and the disabled, they arestarting a war between the States onwho can cut the elderly more than thenext States in order to save money.

Make no mistake about it, I camefrom a State legislature. I know whatit is like being in a State house andtrying to make ends meet. With theFederal Government abandoning themost neediest of our citizens in our so-ciety, they are setting up a dividedcountry in this Nation, and I thinkthat this is something that we have gotto stand up against.

Let us reject the civil war the Repub-licans are trying to wage.

Mr. Speaker, today we begin a race for thebottom.

Faster than you can say block grant, theleaders on the other side of the aisle have dis-mantled a program that said to children whenthey were most vulnerable and to seniors thenthey were most in need: If you are an Amer-ican, you share a common right to basichealth care.

Today, when we discard Medicaid, we throwout that entitlement and replace it with a lot-tery.

Well, as any one who plays the lottery cantell you—most people lose.

Children, poor mothers, and impoverishedseniors will lose under this plan that throws allthe decisions to the States without the moneyto do the job right.

We all know, States will not compete forwho can do the most, but for who can do theleast.

After today, it will not matter that you are anAmerican.

What will matter is what side of the Stateline you live on.

We will 50 different answers to what it is tobe an American.

I call upon my colleagues to remember thatwe are nation of United States and reject thisplan that marches us down the road to a dis-united States.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10850 October 26, 1995CHICKEN LITTLE DEMOCRATS

(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in def-erence to our last speaker, everybodyknows that it was not the Civil War, itwas the War between the States.

Mr. Speaker, today we will pass a 7-year budget reconciliation that is ahuge step forward for this great Na-tion. In the reconciliation, we will dothe things the voters asked us to dowhen they swept the liberal Democratsof out office. We will balance the budg-et in 7 years, something that has notbeen done in a generation. Where theliberal Democrats of the 103d Congressraised taxes, we will refund taxes backto the hard working men and women inthis Nation. We will fix a Medicare sys-tem that was going bankrupt. We willreform the morally bankrupt welfaresystem. In short, Mr. Speaker, todaywe will do the things we promised theAmerican peopled we would do.

I have listened to the Chicken LittleDemocrats whine ‘‘this is too much,too fast, too hard’’. But what do theyoffer? Nothing. Mr. Speaker, every daywe ignore the problems of the Nation,they become worse. Now is the time forgreat action, and today will be remem-bered as a great day.

f

WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY

(Mr. ROEMER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, this isthe people’s House. Therefore, what arethe people of this great country sayingabout cutting taxes in order to get to abalanced budget?

Well, the Committee on the Budgetwent out to listen to the American peo-ple. Here is a transcript of what theCommittee on the Budget heard goingcoast to coast in January and Feb-ruary.

They heard from Mr. Frank Ramseyfrom Prescott, AZ. He said, and Iquote, ‘‘We feel here in Prescott whatneeds to be done first is to cut spendinglong before cutting taxes.’’

Cole Kleitsch of New Jersey said,‘‘The other thing, we cannot have a taxcut right now.’’

Lynn Dill in Delaware: ‘‘I am veryunenthusiastic about tax cuts.’’

Greg Pearson in Montana: ‘‘I think itis absolutely foolish for Congress totalk about reducing taxes at all.’’

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do isbalance the budget by making toughcuts in spending as our coalition budg-et does. Let us demand sacrifice fromall the American people, not divisionand redistributing the resources.

f

TAXES ARE TOO HIGH

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, perhapsconfession is good for the soul, and

good politics. Look at President Clin-ton.

Last week at a fat-cat fundraiser inTexas, he confessed that he raisedtaxes too much in 1993.

Today, the polls show that Mr. Clin-ton has gained some favor with theAmerican public after that confession.

I am sure that news has warmed thehearts of all those Democrats who weredefeated last year after helping thePresident pass the largest tax increasein history.

But there is a lesson in all this forthose surviving House Democrats whofollowed their President like lemmingsand voted to raise taxes on Social Se-curity, who voted to raise taxes on low-and middle-income working families.

The lesson is that it is not too latefor you to have a change of heart, justas the President has.

You can confess that you were wrongto raise taxes in 1993 and you can dem-onstrate your sincerity by helping theRepublican majority cut the Clintontaxes and let working families keepmore of their earnings. Taxes are toohigh. Let us cut them today.

f

TAXES ARE BEING RAISED TODAY

(Mr. DOGGETT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let ustalk about taxes. In fact let us talkabout the taxes that are going to beraised today in this NEWT GINGRICHCongress.

First of course is the sick tax. To beold or disabled in America is to havethe opportunity to pay more and getless health care. It is a tax on beingsick to finance a tax break for thosewho are well, very well, very well off.

Then there is NEWT GINGRICH’S newtax on work. That is right. The Ameri-cans who earn less than $30,000 will bepaying more taxes after today, if Mr.GINGRICH has his way. To those who areoff welfare, who walk past the drugdealer to get to the bus stop, to goacross town to empty the bed pan atthe nursing home, to the young motherwho is off welfare, who is struggling toget child care, who is going acrosstown to sack up another burger andfries, to those people taxes are going togo up after today. They may call thatno new taxes, it is at least NEWT’Staxes.

f

LIBERALS OPPOSERECONCILIATION

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, fromthe home office in Scottsdale, AZ, thetop 10 reasons liberals oppose reconcili-ation. No. 10, mistaken notion thatmilk comes from cartons, electricityfrom light switches, and money fromthe Government instead of from tax-payers. No. 9, forget Travelgate andWhitewater; it is more fun to rip off

taxpayers in the broad daylight. No. 8,tax and spend without end, tax andspend without end. Hey, Mr. Speaker,why would the American people join inthat mind-numbing chant?

No. 7, liberal PR firm of Jennings,Rather and Brokaw advises keep con-fusing and misleading the public, thenleave the rest to us. No. 6, anxiouslyawaiting new sitcom from Larry andLinda Thomason: Bureaucrats KnowBest.

No. 5, people should not keep more oftheir money. That is unfair and, be-sides, it makes too much sense. No, 4,liberal mantra for year-round Hal-loween: Trick the people then treat biggovernment.

No. 3, people’s money, what a won-derful thing to waste. No. 2, self-reli-ance, what a dangerous concept. Andthe No. 1 reason liberals oppose rec-onciliation, a secret fear that thePresident will flipflop again and refuseto veto this commonsense approach tothe future.

f

THE BUDGET BILL

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, bothparties, Democrats and Republicans,have raised taxes. Although I will notvote for the budget bill today, I wantto commend the Republican Party forat least having a program and attempt-ing to turn the country around.

There are two provisions in this billthat I have sponsored. First, it in-creases penalties for IRS misconducttenfold. That will cool the jets of someof those at the IRS, folks. Second ofall, it will give taxpayers an oppor-tunity to sue the IRS for cause.

But I am disappointed. Althoughthere is some language on shifting theburden of proof, my provision is not inthere. Let me say this; one of the mainreasons is money.

My colleagues, if our Founding Fa-thers used money as the yardstick forliberty, we would not have the protec-tion of the Bill of Rights today. Therecan be no justice in America, and afterthis bill is over, a taxpayer will still beconsidered guilty and must provethemselves innocent in a court of law.

I think the Democrats did nothingabout it; tell it like it is. The Repub-licans have an opportunity. I am hop-ing they give me a shot here in thenext year.

f

VOTE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

(Mr. EWING asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, as of yes-terday, the national debt stood at$4,975,508,732,304.35.

It’s not enough to debate how pre-vious Congresses let his happen. It is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10851October 26, 1995not enough to complain and bellyache.It is not enough for Members of Con-gress to make excuses and dancearound their most basic responsibil-ities.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to deal withour national debt and balance thebudget. The excuses are over. The gim-micks have all been tried and havefailed.

Last November, the American peopletold Congress to get its act together.They sent a new Republican majorityto do the job the first time in 40 years.Our party made a promise to give themwhat they have been denied for the last25 years: simple, basic, financial ac-countability from the U.S. Congress.

Today is historic. For the first timein a generation, Congress will vote tobalance the budget and do the rightthing for America’s future and forAmerica’s children.

f

THIS BUDGET BILL DOES THEWRONG THING

(Mr. WARD asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, today weare going to be faced with a budgetwhich I feel does the wrong thing. Itdoes the wrong thing because it cuts atthe very heart of our safety net in thiscountry, and that is our seniors andtheir reliance on the Medicare Pro-gram.

A $270 billion reduction in the spend-ing over the next 7 years will abso-lutely be a cut in services. And why?At the same time I wonder are webeing given the choice, not given thechoice, not given the choice to takeout of this bill a $245 billion tax break.

b 0915

This tax break is not needed. It isonly being funded this year by the cutsthat will be seen in the Medicare Pro-gram. Why, oh why, in the efforts tobalance the budget are we reducingtaxes when we are seeing the highestincome earners in America seeing theirtaxes reduced by this bill?

f

BALANCING THE BUDGET WILLHELP THE POOR WITH STRONGECONOMIC GROWTH

(Mr. BALLENGER asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, theliberal Democrats in this House saythey cannot support a plan to balancethe budget because it will hurt thepoor too much. This is the most bizarreargument I’ve ever heard.

I know it drives my liberal friendsnuts, but the fact is, the best anti-poverty program this country has tooffer is strong economic growth. Andthe best way to get strong economicgrowth is by cutting taxes. That wasthe lesson of the 1980’s.

The tax cuts of both 1963 and 1981 cre-ated a rising tide that did indeed lift

all boats. Imagine if the tax cuts of1981 had been coupled with comparablespending restraint by the Congress.The poor might actually have been ableto survive the disastrous tax increasesof 1990 and 1993.

Do my liberal friends really want tohelp the poor. Then balance the budgetand cut taxes. It is a proven solution.

f

EFFECT OF THE GOP BUDGET ONRHODE ISLAND CHILDREN

(Mr. REED asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise todayto speak on behalf of my constituentswho have no voice but who have a verylarge stake in the outcome of the de-bate over the GOP buget—the childrenof Rhode Island.

The Republican budget will eliminateMedicaid coverage for almost 40,000children in Rhode Island, many whomare disabled. The Republican budgetwill cut nutrition assistance for almost50,000 children in Rhode Island. The Re-publican budget jeopardizes immuniza-tions for children in Rhode Island. TheRepublican budget will deny 14,000 chil-dren in Rhode Island child care assist-ance. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, thelist goes on and on.

I say to my Republican colleagues—we must work toward a balanced budg-et for our children, not balance thebudget on the backs of our children.When it comes to public investment inchildren’s health and education, deny-ing a dollar today actually costs morein the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues tovote against this short-sighted andmean spirited budget reconciliationbill.

f

HELP AMERICAN WORKERS ANDAMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS—JOIN THE TRAVEL AND TOURISTCAUCUS

(Mr. ROTH asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, we heardmany speeches yesterday, and we willhear more today, good speeches on rec-onciliation. I just want to address onequestion of the aftermath of a less-gov-ernment role. I think we have to allowprivate enterprise some elbow room,and we are going to have the oppor-tunity to do that on Monday and Tues-day. We have for the first time ever themost important conference in this dec-ade in this city, the Travel and TouristConference. Travel and tourism is thesecond largest industry in America.They need less taxes, they need lessregulation, so we can give our peoplejobs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a conference forAmerican workers, American smallbusiness, Main Street America. Traveland tourism is becoming the real eco-

nomic power right here in America andall over the globe, as the futurists tellus. Now Congress can be involved inthis small business enterprise, in thistravel and tourism. We have the traveland tourist caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fromOhio [Mr. GILLMOR] is our 300th mem-ber, and I salute him for joining thetravel and tourist caucus. We now have304 members, and I ask all the Membersin Congress to join the travel and tour-ist caucus. Let us do something posi-tive for American workers and Amer-ican small business. Please call my of-fice, join the caucus. Let us do some-thing for American workers.

f

THE REPUBLICANS’ 30-YEAR GOALTO END MEDICARE

(Ms. DELAURO asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, 30 yearsago the Republican leader of the otherbody voted against the creation ofMedicare, and yesterday he bragged ofthat vote saying that he knew it didnot work, and he was proud of his vote,and he was proud that he foughtagainst Medicare.

On this side of the street, SpeakerNEWT GINGRICH joined the trashing ofMedicare, and on Tuesday he revealedthe real GOP plan, to privatize Medi-care. Speaker GINGRICH said, and Iquote, ‘‘We didn’t get rid of it in round1 because we don’t think that that’s po-litically smart.’’

1965–1995, Republicans are closing inon their 30-year goal to end Medicare.Welcome to the Gingrich revolution.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). The Chair would remindMembers they are not to refer to Mem-bers in the other body.

f

RED RIBBON WEEK

(Mr. PORTMAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as im-portant as budget reconciliation is, andit is very important, this morning Iwould like to address something else.This is National Red Ribbon Week; mycolleagues may have seen people wear-ing these red ribbons on the floor ofthis House and around the country. Itis a week to call on our Nation’s citi-zens, particularly our young people, tostay healthy and drug-free.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical andtimely message because unfortunatelyin one generation it appears that nor-malized attitudes toward drug abusehas led to an epidemic increase in thenumber of drug users. The frighteningfact is that although we seem to be

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10852 October 26, 1995winning the war on drugs in the 1980’sthose trends have been dramaticallyreversed.

According to the most recent Na-tional household survey on drug abuse,marijuana use among teenagers nearlydoubled between 1990 and 1994, after 13straight years of decline. Cocaine use isalso up, and today more and more teen-agers and young adults are resorting todrugs from the past like heroin andLSD.

In my own congressional district,drug use is back up to its highest levelsever. In Hamilton County, OH therehas been a documented and dramaticincrease in the past 12 months in theuse of marijuana and harder drugs. Andmost frightening is that drug abuse isoccurring among children at youngerand younger ages.

Mr. Speaker, we must take bold andaggressive action. All Americans mustbe involved. The fight against drugabuse has to be handled community bycommunity, and everyone needs to beinvolved.

f

INJUSTICES OF H.R. 2491—OMNIBUSBUDGET RECONCILIATION

(Mr. RUSH asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise todayto address the most egregious assaulton the American people to date. Someof the missiles have already landed:$182 billion has been cut from Medic-aid, $270 million has been cut fromMedicare. Now that the enemy has pil-laged these areas, they now seek tolaunch an all out offensive to achievetheir ultimate victory—a tax cut forthe wealthiest 10 percent of Americans.

The great injustices of history havebeen committed in the name of un-checked and unbridled majority rule.The Framers of the Constitutionwarned us about the tyranny of themajority. Their fears have become re-ality. The safety net of America isbeing snatched from under them. Af-fordable housing programs within theRTC and FDIC have been terminated.Some $10 billion has been cut from stu-dent loans. The earned income taxcredit will be reduced by 18 percent.Keep in mind, that individuals who re-ceive EITC have an average income of$11,000. The Republican majority hasturned its back on the American peo-ple. This measure is tantamount tothievery—the theft of the sanctity ofthe American people.

f

BALANCING THE BUDGET IS THERIGHT THING TO DO FOR OURFUTURE

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, let mejust read a quote from Ronald Reagan’sfirst inaugural address:

. . . The crisis we are facing today re-quires our best effort and our willingness tobelieve in ourselves and to believe in our ca-pacity to perform great deeds, to believethat together with God’s help we can andwill resolve the problems which nowconfront us. After all, why should we not be-lieve that? We are Americans. That is just astrue today as it was during the first inau-gural address.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of havingyearly billion-dollar deficits has toend. Period. The Federal Governmentcannot continue on the path it is on.This is not a Democrat or Republicanproblem, it is an everyone’s problem.Congress can no longer run away fromthis problem like a bunch of scaredchickens.

Today Congress will have the oppor-tunity to put the Federal Governmentsquarely on the path to a balancedbudget. It must be done. It is the rightthing to do for America’s future. It willbe done because we are Americans.

f

CHRISTMAS IN OCTOBER

(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker,the Republicans are at it again. Theparty for the rich and famous has de-vised a budget plan in which all Ameri-cans lose, except the wealthy. Yes, Mr.Speaker, it is Christmas in October forall of those wealthy Republican cam-paign contributors because the Repub-licans are repaying them with generoustax breaks. Meanwhile, everyone elsegets the short end of the stick.

Under the Republican’s reverse RobinHood budget plan, so many programsthat middle class and working familiesdepend on—education, Medicare, Med-icaid, child nutrition, Head Start,daycare, earned income tax credit, andhousing, just to name a few, are beingrobbed while the wealthiest corpora-tions and individuals will reap a $245billion tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, in order to balance thebudget, a shared sacrifice is necessary;everyone must make sacrifices, notjust the middle class and working peo-ple.

The Republican budget plan will hurtAmerican families. When it comes tofamily values, the Republican Partytalks the talk but they certainly donot walk the walk. This budget provesit.

f

TODAY REPUBLICANS DELIVERCLINTON ADMINISTRATION’SPROMISE

(Mr. RIGGS asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, a child borntoday will pay an average of $187,000 intaxes over 75 years just to cover his orher share of the interest on the na-tional debt. Let me repeat that—achild born today will owe $187,000 juston the interest of the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, for too long our FederalGovernment has squandered away thefuture of American families and theirchildren. The Republican majoritymade a promise to the people to reducethe size of the Federal Government,balance the budget, and reduceoverburdensome taxes, all in order toprovide hope for the future. Today, wewill pass the budget reconciliation billwhich puts us on the path to a balancedbudget by the year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, what the Clinton ad-ministration has promised, the Repub-licans will actually deliver.

f

THE REPUBLICANS’ OUTRAGEOUSMEDICARE CUTS

(Mr. HILLIARD asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, the Re-publicans’ budget cut Medicare fundingby $250 billion, and it is outrageous.Have they no shame?

The Republicans should not forcethose persons among us, who have thegreatest needs, to suffer.

What my Republican colleagues aredoing to our elderly and our disabled isdisgraceful.

I am extremely concerned that ourrural and inner-city hospitals are at se-rious risk. These huge Republican cuts,along with the steady increase in un-compensated care burden, would placethese hospitals in jeopardy, and thehospitals have limited or no ability toshift the costs to payers.

The quality and access to neededhealth care is severely threatened.

The Republican’s Medicare cuts areoutrageous.

Because they refuse to listen to logic,it is my prayer that the American pub-lic hear me and that they will insistthat this budget be vetoed.

b 0930

f

THE CUBAN LIBERTY ANDDEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY ACT

(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldto the gentleman from Florida [Mr.DIAZ-BALART], a member of the Com-mittee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker,could my colleagues imagine if duringthe Holocaust there had been a visithere by Hitler, and the press wouldhave asked him ‘‘Who designs yoursuits? What is your favorite sport inthe Olympics?’’ That is what we justsaw during the visit by the Cuban ty-rant, where some of our colleagues, asa matter of fact, met with him, and saynow they are going to lead CODELS togo down there and lobby for the end ofsanctions against him.

Some businessmen met with Castroand are asking him, ‘‘How many jobscan we transfer to your slave economy

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10853October 26, 1995to take away from American workers?’’That is the reality of this visit that wejust saw, the pathetic visit we just saw.

The answer of this House, and I wantto thank the chairman of the Commit-tee on Rules, as well as the leadership,for inserting in the bill that we aregoing to be discussing today, the an-swer of the American people and theirrepresentatives to the disgusting visitby the Cuban tyrant, is the Cuban Lib-erty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Itis going to be passed again today, andit is the answer to this disgusting visitby the American people.

f

PERMISSION FOR CERTAIN COM-MITTEES AND THEIR SUB-COMMITTEES TO SIT TODAYDURING 5-MINUTE RULE

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the followingcommittees and their subcommitteesbe permitted to sit today while theHouse is meeting in the Committee ofthe Whole under the 5-minute rule: TheCommittee on Commerce, the Commit-tee on Government Reform and Over-sight, the Committee on InternationalRelations, the Committee on the Judi-ciary, the Committee on Resources,and the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure.

It is my understanding that the mi-nority has been consulted and thatthere is no objection to these requests.

Mr. BEILENSON. Reserving the rightto object, Mr. Speaker, we have no ob-jection to this request, but pending it,we would like our side to have one ad-ditional 1-minute, if that is all rightwith the gentleman on the other side.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.GILLMOR). The Chair will recognize thegentleman for one 1-minute.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iwithdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from New York?

There was no objection.

f

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATIONBILL AND CHILDREN

(Mr. NADLER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise toexpress my outrage that, in the Repub-lican rush to bestow a $245 billion taxcut for America’s wealthiest citizens,we are being asked to leave the futuresof our children behind. This is nothingless than immoral.

While the wealthiest Americans willreceive a $20,000 windfall under the Re-publican budget, our Nation’s abusedand neglected children will sufferunder a 19 percent cut in funding forprograms offering child protection. By2002, almost 200,000 children will be de-nied access to Head Start. Medicaidcoverage for as many as 4.4 millionchildren will be eliminated by 2002.

And the Republican budget denies 1million women infant mortality assist-ance, affecting the births of 74,000 in-

fants each year, giving new meaning tothe phrase, ‘‘women and childrenfirst.’’

Mr. Speaker, let us not throw our Na-tion’s children overboard. Let us rejectthese immoral cuts, and oppose the Re-publican budget reconciliation bill.

f

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATIONOF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESO-LUTION 109, SENSE OF CONGRESSREGARDING SOCIAL SECURITYEARNINGS TEST REFORM, ANDFURTHER CONSIDERATION OFH.R. 2491, SEVEN-YEAR BAL-ANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATIONACT OF 1995

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by di-rection of the Committee on Rules, Icall up House Resolution 245 and askfor its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 245Resolved, That at any time after the adop-

tion of this resolution it shall be in order toconsider in the House the concurrent resolu-tion (H. Con. Res. 109) expressing the sense ofthe Congress regarding the need for reformof the social security earnings limit, if calledup by the majority leader or his designee.The concurrent resolution shall be debatablefor twenty minutes equally divided and con-trolled by the majority leader and the mi-nority leader or their designees. The pre-vious question shall be considered as orderedon the concurrent resolution to final adop-tion without intervening motion.

SEC. 2. At any time after the adoption ofthis resolution, the Speaker may, pursuantto clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forfurther consideration of the bill (H.R. 2491)to provide for reconciliation pursuant to sec-tion 105 of the concurrent resolution on thebudget for fiscal year 1996. All time for gen-eral debate under the terms of the order ofthe House of October 24, 1995, shall be consid-ered as expired. Further general debate shallbe confined to the bill and amendments spec-ified in this resolution and shall not exceedthree hours equally divided and controlledby the chairman and ranking minority mem-ber of the Committee on the Budget. Aftergeneral debate the bill shall considered foramendment under the five-minute rule. Anamendment in the nature of a substituteconsisting of the text of H.R. 2517, modifiedby the amendments printed in the report ofthe Committee on Rules accompanying thisresolution, shall be considered as adopted inthe House and in the Committee of theWhole. The bill, as amended, shall be consid-ered as the original bill for the purpose offurther amendment under the five-minuterule. The bill, as amended, shall be consid-ered as read. All points of order against pro-visions in the bill, as amended, are waived.No further amendment shall be in order ex-cept the further amendment in the nature ofa substitute consisting of the text of H.R.2530, which may be offered only by the mi-nority leader or his designee, shall be consid-ered as read, shall be debatable for one hourequally divided and controlled by the pro-ponent and an opponent, and shall not besubject to amendment. All points of orderagainst the further amendment in the natureof a substitute are waived. After a motionthat the Committee rise has been rejected ona day, the Chair may entertain another suchmotion on that day only if offered by thechairman of the Committee on the Budget or

the majority leader or a designee of either.At the conclusion of consideration of the billfor amendment the Committee shall rise andreport the bill, as amended, to the Housewith such further amendment as may havebeen adopted. The previous question shall beconsidered as ordered on the bill, as amend-ed, and any amendment thereto to final pas-sage without intervening motion except onemotion to recommit with or without instruc-tions. The motion to recommit may includeinstructions only if offered by the minorityleader or his designee. The yeas and naysshall be considered as ordered on the ques-tion of passage of the bill and on any con-ference report thereon. Clause 5(c) of ruleXXI shall not apply to the bill, amendmentsthereof, or conference reports thereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from New York [Mr. SOLOMON]is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for pur-poses of debate only, I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from California [Mr. BEIL-ENSON], pending which I yield myselfsuch time as I may consume. Duringconsideration of the resolution, alltime yielded is for purposes of debateonly.

(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks and include extraneous mate-rial.)

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, HouseResolution 245 is the customary re-strictive rule for considering reconcili-ation legislation.

In this case the rule first makes inorder the consideration in the House ofa sense of the Congress resolution,House Congress Resolution 109, intro-duced by Mr. HASTERT. That resolutionexpresses the intent of Congress to passlegislation before the end of this yearto raise the Social Security earningslimit for working seniors aged 65through 69.

That is an important commitmentwe made in our Contract With Americaand we intend to keep that commit-ment to America’s senior citizens.

Unfortunately, the Budget Act pro-hibits the consideration of legislationamending the Social Security Act aspart of reconciliation. But we will voteon and pass this as a separate bill be-fore this session adjourns.

Mr. Speaker, following 20 minutes ofdebate on that resolution, and a voteon its adoption, the rule provides forthe further consideration of H.R. 2491,the Seven Year Balanced Budget Rec-onciliation Act of 1995.

And, oh, how the title of this billsays it all—the ‘‘Seven-Year BalancedBudget Reconciliation Act of 1995.’’Today we are bringing to final fruitionour efforts of the past 10 months to de-liver to the American people on ourpromise to balance the budget in 7years.

Yesterday, we had a full 3 hours ofgeneral debate on that bill pursuant toa unanimous-consent request that wasgranted in consultation with the mi-nority leadership.

Today this rule provides for another3 hours of general debate before we

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10854 October 26, 1995consider for 1 hour a Democrat sub-stitute that will be offered by the mi-nority leader or his designee.

Those 6 hours are three times asmuch general debate time as we had onthe Clinton reconciliation bill in 1993.That is as it should be, though, on abill this important.

The rule provides for the adoption inthe House and the Committee of theWhole of that amendment in the na-ture of a substitute which consists ofthe text of H.R. 2517, introduced by theBudget Committee chairman, as modi-fied by the amendments printed in theRules Committee’s report on this rule.

That substitute is made base text forthe purpose of further amendment.That further amendment is the so-called coalition substitute which is thetext of H.R. 2530, introduced by Rep-resentative ORTON and others yester-day.

It will be debated for 1 hour. TheHouse will then vote on it after whichthe Committee of the Whole will riseand report the bill back to the House.

Before final passage, the minorityleader or a designee may offer one mo-tion to recommit, with or without in-structions. That is something that wasdenied us in the minority on reconcili-ation bills in recent years, but is some-thing we guaranteed to the minority inour House rules reforms at the begin-ning of this Congress. So, the minoritywill have twice as many amendmentsas we were allowed when we were inthe minority.

Finally, the rule orders the yeas andnays on passage of the bill, and sus-pends the application of clause 5(c) ofrule XXI, which requires a three-fifthsvote on any bill, amendment or con-ference report containing a Federal in-come tax rate increase, against thepassage of the bill or the adoption ofany amendment or conference reportthereon.

Mr. Speaker, let me hasten to addthat the Ways and Means Committeehas certified that there are no Federalincome tax rate increases contained inthis measure we are making in orderby this rule.

The three-fifths vote requirement isbeing waived, nevertheless, as a pre-cautionary measure to avoid any un-necessary points that might be madeout of a misunderstanding of the rule.

When we adopted this rule back onJanuary 4 of this year, we placed ananalysis in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDat page H34. That analysis made clearthat the term only applies to increasesin the income tax rates contained insections 1 and 11 of the Internal Reve-nue Code for individuals and corpora-tions, respectively.

These are the commonly understoodmarginal or bracket rates with whichmost Americans are well familiar.That is the interpretation which stillapplies today. And this bill does not in-crease those rates one iota.

Mr. Speaker, today is not reallyabout today’s vote, as historic as it is,or about the past 10 months duringwhich we struggled to develop this

glide-path to a balanced budget by theyear 2002.

Today is really about the future—thefuture of the economy, the future ofthis country, and the futures of ourchildren and grandchildren and the bet-ter world we will bestow on them byputting our fiscal house in order today.

An overwhelming majority of theAmerican people favor balancing theFederal budget—of ensuring that wespend no more than we take in. As thelast election demonstrated, they fullyexpect us to make good our promises tobalance the budget by making the hardchoices necessary to achieve that goal.

Yes, it will involve some sacrifices onthe part of everyone. But today’s tem-porary pain will be tomorrow’s greatgain for our country as we build astrong economic base on which to cre-ate new jobs and prosperity for allAmericans.

We can no longer be content to reston the laurels of our past achieve-ments. They are behind us and we arenow literally drowning in a sea of redink we have created by our past ac-tions.

We have overpromised, overspent,and underdelivered on what the Gov-ernment alone is capable of doing. In sodoing, we have stifled rather than pro-moted individual initiative and oppor-tunity in the private sector which isthe key to new jobs and our futuregrowth and survival as a country.

Our annual interest payments on thenational debt alone are consuming andcrowding out the capital necessary tobuild the kind of private sector growththat is so critical to our country’scompeting in this global economy.

By our actions here today we are rec-ognizing the need to restrain the vora-cious appetite of the Government thatis devouring the hard-earned dollars ofAmerican workers rather than allow-ing them to be put to more productiveuse in the private sector to create newand better paying jobs.

The time has come to put an end tothe fiscal madness and insanity that isdriving us deeper and deeper into debt.The bill before us reverses that trend.

It is called a reconciliation bill be-cause in a narrow sense it reconcilesour spending practices with our bal-anced budgetary goals adopted lastspring.

But, in a larger sense it is a granderkind of reconciliation because it rec-onciles the grim realities of today withour hopes and dreams for a brighterand more prosperous future.

We cannot achieve that glorious rec-onciliation with the America we wantto leave to our posterity if we do notmake the hard choices and votes wemust confront today. We can no longerget by on espousing the rhetoric of abalanced budget while avoiding takingthe tough but necessary steps to getthere.

We can no longer get by on blamingothers for our failed dreams of bal-ancing the budget when we have theduty and ability today by our votes on

this bill to make those dreams a re-ality.

Today, that dream is within ourgrasp—indeed, the vote is at our veryfingertips. We can either vote ‘‘yes’’ forthe dream of a brighter future, or ‘‘no’’for a long nightmare of economic stag-nation, failure, and collapse.

It’s in our hands; the choice is ours.Support this rule and the balancedbudget reconciliation bill it makes inorder.

Mr. Speaker, I include for theRECORD information regarding thisrule, and previous rules and other per-tinent material:H. RES 245—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE

RULE FOR CONSIDERATION OF: HOUSE CON-CURRENT RESOLUTION 109—SOCIAL SECURITYEARNINGS TEST REFORM; H.R. 2491—SEVENYEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATIONACT OF 1995

1. Provides for consideration in the Houseof a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 109)Social Security earnings test reform, debat-able for 20 minutes, divided between the Ma-jority and Minority Leaders or their des-ignees.

2. Provides three hours of additional gen-eral debate on H.R. 2491, divided equally be-tween the chairman and ranking minoritymember of the Committee on the Budget.

3. Provides that an amendment in the na-ture of a substitute consisting of the text ofH.R. 2517 modified by the amendments print-ed in the Rules Committee’s report on therule shall be considered as adopted in theHouse and the Committee of the Whole; thatthe bill as amended shall be considered as anoriginal bill for the purpose of furtheramendment; and that all points of orderagainst provisions of the bill as amended arewaived.

4. Provides that no amendment shall be inorder to the bill as amended except anamendment in the nature of a substituteconsisting of the text of H.R. 2530, whichmay only be offered by the Minority Leaderor his designee.

5. Provides that the amendment in the na-ture of a substitute shall be considered asread, shall not be subject to amendment, andshall be debatable for one hour equally di-vided and controlled by the proponent and anopponent.

6. Waives all points of order against theamendment in the nature of a substitute.

7. Provides after a motion to rise has beenrejected on any day, another such motionmay only be offered by the Majority Leaderor Budget Committee chairman.

8. Provides one motion to recommit which,if containing instructions, may only be of-fered by the Minority Leader or a designee.

9. Provides that the yeas and nays are or-dered on final passage and that the provi-sions of clause 5(c) of Rule XXI (requiring athree-fifths vote on any amendment or meas-ure containing a Federal income tax rate in-crease) shall not apply to the votes on thebill, amendments thereto or conference re-ports thereon.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS MODIFYING THETEXT OF H.R. 2517 TO FORM THE NEW BASETEXT FOR AMENDMENT PURPOSES

Upton (MI): Amend Food, Drug and Cos-metic Act to authorize the export of newdrugs if approved in recipient country. (p.275, after line 11, insert new Subtitle F—‘‘FDA Export Reform and EnhancementAct’’)

Horn (CA)/Davis (VA) (modified): Add newtools for Federal agencies to collect debts

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10855October 26, 1995owed to the United States to enhance debtcollection and improve financial manage-ment. (Inserts new Subtitle B to Title V,‘‘Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1995,’’at page 333, line 15)

Barr (GA): Strike section 7002, ‘‘Civil Mon-etary Penalty Surcharge and Telecommuni-cations Carrier Compliance Payments.’’ (p.416, line 3 through p. 419, line 6)

Davis (VA): Strike section 10404, ‘‘Collec-tion of Parking Fees,’’ requiring each Execu-tive agency to collect parking fees at allFederal parking facilities. (p. 700, line 23through page 701, line 19)

Davis (VA) (modified): Amend sec. 17201(c),National Technical Information Service, toprovide that if an appropriate arrangementfor the privatization of the functions of theNTI Service has not been made before theend of the 18-month period, the Service shallbe transferred to the National Institute forScience and Technology. (p. 1588, lines 3through 7)

Bliley (VA): Change the Medicaid alloca-tion and lower the statutory caps for discre-tionary spending accordingly.

[Excerpted from the Rules Committee’sreport on H. Res. 245, the reconciliation rule]EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION OF CLAUSE 5(C),

RULE XXI WAIVER

As indicated in the preceding paragraph,the Committee has provided in this rule thatthe provisions of clause 5(c) of House RuleXXI, which require a three-fifths vote on anybill, joint resolution, amendment or con-ference report ‘‘carrying a Federal incometax rate increase,’’ shall not apply to the

votes on passage of H.R. 2491, or to the votesany amendment thereto or conference reportthereon.

The suspension of clause 5(c) of rule XXI isnot being done because there are any Federalincome tax rate increases contained in thereconciliation substitute being made inorder as base text by this rule. As the Com-mittee on Ways and Means has pointed outin its portion of the report on the reconcili-ation bill—

‘‘The Committee has carefully reviewedthe provisions of Titles XIII and XIV of therevenue reconciliation provisions approvedby the Committee to determine whether anyof these provisions constitute a Federal in-come tax rate increase within the meaningof the House Rules. It is the opinion of theCommittee that there is no provision of Ti-tles XIII and XIV of the revenue reconcili-ation provisions that constitutes a Federalincome tax rate increase within the meaningof House Rule XXI, 5(c) or (d).’’

Nevertheless, the Committee on Rules hassuspended the application of clause 5(c) as aprecautionary measure to avoid unnecessarypoints of order that might otherwise ariseover confusion or misinterpretations of whatis meant by an income tax rate increase.

Such a point of order was raised and over-ruled on the final passage vote of H.R. 1215,the omnibus tax bill, on April 15, 1995. Theranking minority member of the Rules Com-mittee subsequently wrote to the chairmanof this Committee requesting a clarificationof the rule. An exchange of correspondencewith the Parliamentarian and the Counsel ofthe Joint Tax Committee was subsequently

released by the chairman of this Committeeon June 13, 1995, regarding the ruling and theprovisions of the bill which gave rise to thepoint of order.

The Committee would simply conclude thisdiscussion by citing from the section-by-sec-tion analysis of H. Res. 6, adopting HouseRules for the 104th Congress, placed in theCongressional Record at the time the ruleswere adopted on January 4, 1995. With re-spect to clauses 5(c) and (d) which require athree-fifths vote on any income tax rate in-crease and prohibit consideration of any ret-roactive income tax rate increase, respec-tively:

‘‘For purposes of these rules, the term‘Federal income tax rate increase’ is, for ex-ample, an increase in the individual incometax rates established in section 1, and thecorporate income tax rates established insection 11, respectively, of the Internal Reve-nue Code of 1986.’’ (Congressional Record,Jan. 4, 1995, p. H–34)

The rates established by those sections arethe commonly understood ‘‘marginal’’ taxrates or income ‘‘bracket’’ tax rates applica-ble to various minimum and maximum in-come dollar amounts for individuals and cor-porations. It is the intent of this committeethat the term ‘‘Federal income tax rate in-crease’’ should be narrowly construed andconfined to the rates specified in those twosections. As indicated in the Ways andMeans Committee’s report, those rates havenot been increased by any provision con-tained in H.R. 2491 as made in order as basetext by this resolution.

HOUSE RECONCILIATION RULES, 1980–93

Congress year Bill No. Rule Terms of rules

96th (1980) ............. H.R. 7765 ............ H. Res. 776 ................ 10-hours general debate (1-hr. ea. to 8 comms., 2-hrs. Ways and Means); 4 amendments allowed: (1) Budget Comm.; (2) Strike subtitle; (3) Rep. Vanik (D); (4) Rep.Bauman (R); one motion to recommit.

97th (1981) ............. H.R. 3982 ............ H. Res. 169 ................ 8-hrs. general debate, comms, of juris.; amendment in nature of substitute by chairman of Budget Comm.; 6 amendments by Rep. Latta; 1-hr. on motion to recommit.98th (1983) ............. H.R. 4169 ............ H. Res. 344 ................ 1-hr. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; amendment in nature of substitute made in order; 1 amendment by chmn. Budget Comm.; one motion to recommit, with or without

instructions.98th (1984) ............. H.R. 5394 ............ H. Res. 483 ................ 6-hrs. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; (1) amend. by W&M Comm., 1-hr; (2) amend. by Rep. Pepper, 30-mins.; one motion to recommit.99th (1985) ............. H.R. 3500 ............ H. Res. 296 ................ 4-hrs. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; self-execute amendment; (1) Rep. Fazio, 30-mins; (2) Rep. Latta, 1-hr.; (3) Rep. Florio, 30-mins; one motion to recommit.99th (1986) ............. H.R. 5300 ............ H. Res. 558 ................ 3-hrs. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; self-execute amend.; (1) Rep. Rodino, 30-mins.; (2) Rep. Rodino, 30-mins.; (3) Rep. Wylie, 30-mins.; one motion to recommit with-

out instructions.100th (1987) ........... H.R. 3545 ............ H. Res. 296/298 ......... 3-hrs. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; self-execute amend.; (1) Rep. Michel, 1-hr.; one motion to recommit without instructions.101st (1989) ........... H.R. 3299 ............ H. Res. 245/249 ......... 6-hrs. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; self-execute amend.; 10 amendments (D–7;R–3), debatable from 30-mins. to 2-hrs. ea. (varies by amendment); one motion to re-

commit.101st (1990) ........... H.R. 5835 ............ H. Res. 509 ................ 3-hrs. gen. debate, Budget Comm.; self-execute amends.; (1) Rep. Rostenkowski, 1-hr.; one motion to recommit without instructions.103d (1993) ............ H.R. 2264 ............ H. Res. 186 ................ 2-hrs. gen. debate; self-execute amend. (54 page); (1) Rep. Kasich substitute, (290 pages), 1-hr.; one motion to recommit without instructions.

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,1 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS[As of October 25, 1995]

Rule type103d Congress 104th Congress

Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total

Open/Modified-open 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 44 51 70Modified Closed 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 47 18 25Closed 4 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 9 4 5

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 100 73 100

1 This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only waive points oforder against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an open amendment process under House rules.

2 An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule subject onlyto an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be preprinted in the Congressional Record.

3 A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which precludeamendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open to amendment.

4 A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS[As of October 25, 1995]

H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule

H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 5 .............................. Unfunded Mandate Reform ................................................................................................. A: 350–71 (1/19/95).H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H. Con. Res. 17 ...............

H.J. Res. 1 .......................Social Security .....................................................................................................................Balanced Budget Amdt .......................................................................................................

A: 255–172 (1/25/95).

H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 101 .......................... Land Transfer, Taos Pueblo Indians ................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/1/95).H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 400 .......................... Land Exchange, Arctic Nat’l. Park and Preserve ................................................................ A: voice vote (2/1/95).H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 440 .......................... Land Conveyance, Butte County, Calif ............................................................................... A: voice vote (2/1/95).H. Res. 55 (2/1/95) ........................................ O ...................................... H.R. 2 .............................. Line Item Veto ..................................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/2/95).H. Res. 60 (2/6/95) ........................................ O ...................................... H.R. 665 .......................... Victim Restitution ................................................................................................................ A: voice vote (2/7/95).H. Res. 61 (2/6/95) ........................................ O ...................................... H.R. 666 .......................... Exclusionary Rule Reform .................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/7/95).H. Res. 63 (2/8/95) ........................................ MO ................................... H.R. 667 .......................... Violent Criminal Incarceration ............................................................................................ A: voice vote (2/9/95).H. Res. 69 (2/9/95) ........................................ O ...................................... H.R. 668 .......................... Criminal Alien Deportation .................................................................................................. A: voice vote (2/10/95).H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 728 .......................... Law Enforcement Block Grants ........................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/13/95).H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 7 .............................. National Security Revitalization .......................................................................................... PQ: 229–100; A: 227–127 (2/15/95).H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H.R. 831 .......................... Health Insurance Deductibility ............................................................................................ PQ: 230–191; A: 229–188 (2/21/95).H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 830 .......................... Paperwork Reduction Act .................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/22/95).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10856 October 26, 1995SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS—Continued

[As of October 25, 1995]

H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule

H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H.R. 889 .......................... Defense Supplemental ......................................................................................................... A: 282–144 (2/22/95).H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 450 .......................... Regulatory Transition Act .................................................................................................... A: 252–175 (2/23/95).H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 1022 ........................ Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................. A: 253–165 (2/27/95).H. Res. 100 (2/27/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 926 .......................... Regulatory Reform and Relief Act ...................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/28/95).H. Res. 101 (2/28/95) .................................... MO ................................... H.R. 925 .......................... Private Property Protection Act ........................................................................................... A: 271–151 (3/2/95).H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 1058 ........................ Securities Litigation Reform ................................................................................................H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 988 .......................... Attorney Accountability Act ................................................................................................. A: voice vote (3/6/95).H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) ...................................... MO ................................... .......................................... .............................................................................................................................................. A: 257–155 (3/7/95).H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) ...................................... Debate ............................. H.R. 956 .......................... Product Liability Reform ...................................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/8/95).H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) ...................................... MC ................................... .......................................... .............................................................................................................................................. PQ: 234–191 A: 247–181 (3/9/95).H. Res. 115 (3/14/95) .................................... MO ................................... H.R. 1159 ........................ Making Emergency Supp. Approps ...................................................................................... A: 242–190 (3/15/95).H. Res. 116 (3/15/95) .................................... MC ................................... H.J. Res. 73 ..................... Term Limits Const. Amdt .................................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/28/95).H. Res. 117 (3/16/95) .................................... Debate ............................. H.R. 4 .............................. Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 ................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/21/95).H. Res. 119 (3/21/95) .................................... MC ................................... .......................................... .............................................................................................................................................. A: 217–211 (3/22/95).H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1271 ........................ Family Privacy Protection Act .............................................................................................. A: 423–1 (4/4/95).H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 660 .......................... Older Persons Housing Act ................................................................................................. A: voice vote (4/6/95).H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H.R. 1215 ........................ Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 .................................................................. A: 228–204 (4/5/95).H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H.R. 483 .......................... Medicare Select Expansion .................................................................................................. A: 253–172 (4/6/95).H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 655 .......................... Hydrogen Future Act of 1995 .............................................................................................. A: voice vote (5/2/95).H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1361 ........................ Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 ................................................................................................ A: voice vote (5/9/95).H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 961 .......................... Clean Water Amendments ................................................................................................... A: 414–4 (5/10/95).H. Res. 144 (5/11/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 535 .......................... Fish Hatchery—Arkansas .................................................................................................... A: voice vote (5/15/95).H. Res. 145 (5/11/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 584 .......................... Fish Hatchery—Iowa ........................................................................................................... A: voice vote (5/15/95).H. Res. 146 (5/11/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 614 .......................... Fish Hatchery—Minnesota .................................................................................................. A: voice vote (5/15/95).H. Res. 149 (5/16/95) .................................... MC ................................... H. Con. Res. 67 ............... Budget Resolution FY 1996 ................................................................................................ PQ: 252–170 A: 255–168 (5/17/95).H. Res. 155 (5/22/95) .................................... MO ................................... H.R. 1561 ........................ American Overseas Interests Act ........................................................................................ A: 233–176 (5/23/95).H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H.R. 1530 ........................ Nat. Defense Auth. FY 1996 ............................................................................................... PQ: 225–191 A: 233–183 (6/13/95).H. Res. 167 (6/15/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1817 ........................ MilCon Appropriations FY 1996 .......................................................................................... PQ: 223–180 A: 245–155 (6/16/95).H. Res. 169 (6/19/95) .................................... MC ................................... H.R. 1854 ........................ Leg. Branch Approps. FY 1996 ........................................................................................... PQ: 232–196 A: 236–191 (6/20/95).H. Res. 170 (6/20/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1868 ........................ For. Ops. Approps. FY 1996 ................................................................................................ PQ: 221–178 A: 217–175 (6/22/95).H. Res. 171 (6/22/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1905 ........................ Energy & Water Approps. FY 1996 ..................................................................................... A: voice vote (7/12/95).H. Res. 173 (6/27/95) .................................... C ...................................... H.J. Res. 79 ..................... Flag Constitutional Amendment .......................................................................................... PQ: 258–170 A: 271–152 (6/28/95).H. Res. 176 (6/28/95) .................................... MC ................................... H.R. 1944 ........................ Emer. Supp. Approps ........................................................................................................... PQ: 236–194 A: 234–192 (6/29/95).H. Res. 185 (7/11/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1977 ........................ Interior Approps. FY 1996 ................................................................................................... PQ: 235–193 D: 192–238 (7/12/95).H. Res. 187 (7/12/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1977 ........................ Interior Approps. FY 1996 #2 ............................................................................................. PQ: 230–194 A: 229–195 (7/13/95).H. Res. 188 (7/12/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1976 ........................ Agriculture Approps. FY 1996 ............................................................................................. PQ: 242–185 A: voice vote (7/18/95).H. Res. 190 (7/17/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2020 ........................ Treasury/Postal Approps. FY 1996 ...................................................................................... PQ: 232–192 A: voice vote (7/18/95).H. Res. 193 (7/19/95) .................................... C ...................................... H.J. Res. 96 ..................... Disapproval of MFN to China ............................................................................................. A: voice vote (7/20/95).H. Res. 194 (7/19/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2002 ........................ Transportation Approps. FY 1996 ....................................................................................... PQ: 217–202 (7/21/95).H. Res. 197 (7/21/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 70 ............................ Exports of Alaskan Crude Oil .............................................................................................. A: voice vote (7/24/95).H. Res. 198 (7/21/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2076 ........................ Commerce, State Approps. FY 1996 ................................................................................... A: voice vote (7/25/95).H. Res. 201 (7/25/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2099 ........................ VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996 .................................................................................................. A: 230–189 (7/25/95).H. Res. 204 (7/28/95) .................................... MC ................................... S. 21 ................................ Terminating U.S. Arms Embargo on Bosnia ....................................................................... A: voice vote (8/1/95).H. Res. 205 (7/28/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2126 ........................ Defense Approps. FY 1996 .................................................................................................. A: 409–1 (7/31/95).H. Res. 207 (8/1/95) ...................................... MC ................................... H.R. 1555 ........................ Communications Act of 1995 ............................................................................................. A: 255–156 (8/2/95).H. Res. 208 (8/1/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2127 ........................ Labor, HHS Approps. FY 1996 ............................................................................................. A: 323–104 (8/2/95).H. Res. 215 (9/7/95) ...................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1594 ........................ Economically Targeted Investments .................................................................................... A: voice vote (9/12/95).H. Res. 216 (9/7/95) ...................................... MO ................................... H.R. 1655 ........................ Intelligence Authorization FY 1996 ..................................................................................... A: voice vote (9/12/95).H. Res. 218 (9/12/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1162 ........................ Deficit Reduction Lockbox ................................................................................................... A: voice vote (9/13/95).H. Res. 219 (9/12/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1670 ........................ Federal Acquisition Reform Act ........................................................................................... A: 414–0 (9/13/95).H. Res. 222 (9/18/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1617 ........................ CAREERS Act ....................................................................................................................... A: 388–2 (9/19/95).H. Res. 224 (9/19/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2274 ........................ Natl. Highway System ......................................................................................................... PQ: 241–173 A: 375–39–1 (9/20/95).H. Res. 225 (9/19/95) .................................... MC ................................... H.R. 927 .......................... Cuban Liberty & Dem. Solidarity ........................................................................................ A: 304–118 (9/20/95).H. Res. 226 (9/21/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 743 .......................... Team Act ............................................................................................................................. A: 344–66–1 (9/27/95).H. Res. 227 (9/21/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1170 ........................ 3-Judge Court ...................................................................................................................... A: voice vote (9/28/95).H. Res. 228 (9/21/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1601 ........................ Internatl. Space Station ...................................................................................................... A: voice vote (9/27/95).H. Res. 230 (9/27/95) .................................... C ...................................... H.J. Res. 108 ................... Continuing Resolution FY 1996 .......................................................................................... A: voice vote (9/28/95).H. Res. 234 (9/29/95) .................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2405 ........................ Omnibus Science Auth ........................................................................................................ A: voice vote (10/11/95).H. Res. 237 (10/17/95) .................................. MC ................................... H.R. 2259 ........................ Disapprove Sentencing Guidelines ...................................................................................... A: voice vote (10/18/95).H. Res. 238 (10/18/95) .................................. MC ................................... H.R. 2425 ........................ Medicare Preservation Act ................................................................................................... PQ: 231–194 A: 227–192 (10/19/95).H. Res. 239 (10/19/95) .................................. C ...................................... H.R. 2492 ........................ Leg. Branch Approps ...........................................................................................................H. Res. 245 (10/25/95) .................................. MC ................................... H. Con. Res. 109 .............

H.R. 2491 ........................Social Security Earnings Reform .........................................................................................Seven-Year Balanced Budget ..............................................................................................

Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

CORRECTION OF VOTES IN COMMITTEE REPORTOCTOBER 26, 1995

The Rules Committee’s report, House Re-port 104–292 on House Resolution 245, the rulefor the consideration of House ConcurrentResolution 109 and H.R. 2491, contains threeerroneously reported rollcall votes due to ty-pographical errors during the printing proc-ess. The votes were correctly reported in theoriginal report filed with the Clerk.

Below is a correct version of those votes ascontained in the Rules Committee report asfiled with the House. The amendment num-bers referred to in the motions are to amend-ments filed with the Rules Committee—asummary of which are contained followingthe listing of votes in the committee report.

The corrected votes for Rollcall Nos. 215,228, and 229 are as follows:

RULES COMMITTEE ROLLCALL NO. 215

Date: October 25, 1995.Measure: House Concurrent Resolution 109,

Sense of Congress on Social Security Earn-ings Test Reform, and H.R. 2491, The SevenYear Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of1995.

Motion By: Mr. Beilenson.Summary of Motion: Motions No. 12, No.

13, and No. 35.Results: Rejected, 5 to 8.

Vote by Member Yea Nay Present

QUILLEN ........................................................... ........... X .............DREIER ............................................................ ........... X .............GOSS ................................................................ ........... X .............LINDER ............................................................. X ........... .............PRYCE .............................................................. ........... X .............DIAZ-BALART ................................................... ........... X .............McINNIS ........................................................... ........... X .............WALDHOLTZ ..................................................... ........... X .............MOAKLEY ......................................................... X ........... .............BEILENSON ...................................................... X ........... .............FROST .............................................................. X ........... .............HALL ................................................................ X ........... .............SOLOMON ........................................................ ........... X .............


Date: October 25, 1995.Measure: House Concurrent Resolution,

109, Sense of Congress on Social SecurityEarnings Test Reform, and H.R. 2491, TheSeven Year Balanced Budget ReconciliationAct of 1995.

Motion By: Mr. Hall.Summary of Motion: No. 30 and No. 38.Results: Rejected, 4 to 9.


QUILLEN ........................................................... ........... X .............DREIER ............................................................ ........... X .............G0SS ................................................................ ........... X .............LINDER ............................................................. ........... X .............PRYCE .............................................................. ........... X .............DIAZ-BALART ................................................... ........... X .............McINNIS ........................................................... ........... X .............


WALDHOLTZ ..................................................... ........... X .............MOAKLEY ......................................................... X ........... .............BEILENSON ...................................................... X ........... .............FROST .............................................................. X ........... .............HALL ................................................................ X ........... .............SOLOMON ........................................................ ........... X .............


Date: October 25, 1995.Measure: House Concurrent Resolution 109,

Sense of Congress on Social Security Earn-ings Test Reform, and H.R. 2491, The SevenYear Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of1995.

Motion By: Mr. Frost.Summary of Motion: No. 39.Results: Rejected, 4 to 8.


QUILLEN ........................................................... ........... X .............DREIER ............................................................ ........... X .............G0SS ................................................................ ........... X .............LINDER ............................................................. ........... X .............PRYCE .............................................................. ........... X .............DIAZ-BALART ................................................... ........... ........... .............McINNIS ........................................................... ........... X .............WALDHOLTZ ..................................................... ........... X .............MOAKLEY ......................................................... X ........... .............BEILENSON ...................................................... X ........... .............FROST .............................................................. X ........... .............HALL ................................................................ X ........... .............SOLOMON ........................................................ ........... X .............

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10857October 26, 1995HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.

Hon. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON,Chairman of the Committee on Rules, U.S. Cap-

itol, Washington, DC.DEAR CHAIRMAN SOLOMON: Pursuant to au-

thority provided to me by the CommitteeReport accompanying the Concurrent Reso-lution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, H.Con. Res. 67, I hereby certify the amendmentin the nature of a substitute made in orderby H. Res. 245 would result in a balancedbudget by Fiscal Year 2002.

Section 210(a)(2)(C) of H. Con. Res. 67 au-thorized the Chairman of the Committee onthe Budget to certify an amendment in thenature of a substitute, made in order by theCommittee on Rules, consisting of the textof the reported bill, as modified by anyamendments necessary to balance the budgetand achieve compliance with reconciliationinstructions. Section 210(1) further specifiedthat the certification is to be based upon anestimate provided by the Director of theCongressional Budget Office.

According to the attached estimate by theDirector of the Congressional Budget Office,the substitute as amended by H. Res. 245would result in the following deficit or sur-plus levels: $¥158 billion in Fiscal Year 1996,$¥180 billion in Fiscal Year 1997, $¥146 bil-

lion in Fiscal Year 1998, $¥120 billion in Fis-cal Year 1999, $¥96 billion in Fiscal Year2000, $¥40 billion in Fiscal Year 2001, and $+1billion in Fiscal Year 2002.

The consideration of H.R. 2491 is an his-toric step as Congress moves to balance theFederal budget for the first time in over 30years. The future of our nation depends uponbringing our fiscal affairs in order. It hasbeen an honor for me to participate in thisexciting process.

Sincerely,JOHN R. KASICH,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget.

U.S. CONGRESS,CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.Hon. JOHN R. KASICH,Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S.

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional

Budget Office has reviewed the amendmentin the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2491, theSeven-Year Balanced Budget ReconciliationAct of 1995, considered as adopted under theterms of the rule providing for further con-sideration of H.R. 2491. As provided by sec-tion 210 of the budget resolution for fiscalyear 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67), CBO has projectedthe deficits that will result if the substituteis enacted. As specified in section 210, these

projections use the economic and technicalassumptions underlying the budget resolu-tion, assume the level of discretionaryspending allowed under the new statutorycaps on appropriations that are contained inthe substitute, and include changes in out-lays and revenues estimated to result fromthe economic impact of balancing the budgetby fiscal year 2002 as estimated by CBO in itsApril 1995 ‘‘An Analysis of the President’sBudgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1996.’’On that basis, CBO projects that enactmentof the reconciliation legislation embodied inthe substitute would produce a small budgetsurplus in 2002. The estimated federal spend-ing, revenues and deficits that would occur ifthe proposal is enacted are shown in Table 1.The resulting differences from CBO’s April1995 baseline are summarized in Table 2,which includes the adjustments to the base-line assumed by the budget resolution. Theestimated savings from changes in directspending and revenues that would resultfrom enactment of each title of the sub-stitute are summarized in Table 3 and de-scribed in more detail in an attachment.

If you wish further details on this projec-tion, we will be pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,JUNE E. O’NEILL.

Attachment.

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED HOUSE OUTLAYS, REVENUES, AND DEFICITS[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Outlays:Discretionary ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 536 525 518 517 521 517 516Mandatory:

Medicare 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 194 209 217 228 247 266 288Medicaid ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 97 103 108 112 117 122 127Other ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 501 525 553 583 614 638 671

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 792 837 878 923 978 1,026 1,086Net Interest .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 257 260 260 260 258 252 247

Total outlays ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,584 1,623 1,656 1,700 1,758 1,795 1,849Revenues .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,426 1,442 1,510 1,580 1,662 1,755 1,849Deficit ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 180 146 120 96 40 ¥1

1 Medicare benefit payments only. Excludes medicare premiums and graduate medical education spending.

Source.—Congressional Budget Office.Notes.—The fiscal dividend expected to result from balancing the budget is reflected in these figures. Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED HOUSE BUDGETARY CHANGES FROM CBO’S APRIL BASELINE[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total 1996–2002

CBO April baseline deficit 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 210 230 232 266 299 316 349 NABaseline adjustments 2:

CPI rebenchmarking 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 ¥1 ¥3 ¥6 ¥9 ¥18Other adjustments 4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 10

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 ¥1 ¥4 ¥8 ¥9Policy Changes:

Outlays, discretionary:Freeze 5 ................................................................................................................................................................... ¥8 ¥9 ¥12 ¥35 ¥55 ¥75 ¥96 ¥289Additional savings ................................................................................................................................................. ¥10 ¥22 ¥29 ¥26 ¥22 ¥26 ¥28 ¥162Welfare reform 6 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 19

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥16 ¥28 ¥38 ¥58 ¥74 ¥98 ¥120 ¥432Outlays, mandatory:

Medicare ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥8 ¥15 ¥27 ¥40 ¥49 ¥60 ¥71 ¥270Medicaid ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥3 ¥7 ¥14 ¥23 ¥31 ¥41 ¥51 ¥169Other ...................................................................................................................................................................... ¥14 ¥22 ¥22 ¥27 ¥29 ¥29 ¥31 ¥174

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥25 ¥44 ¥63 ¥89 ¥109 ¥130 ¥153 ¥614Net Interest ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥2 ¥5 ¥9 ¥16 ¥27 ¥41 ¥60 ¥161

Total outlays ............................................................................................................................................................... ¥42 ¥77 ¥111 ¥164 ¥210 ¥269 ¥333 ¥1,207Revenues 7 ................................................................................................................................................................................ ¥8 33 38 40 39 39 41 223

Total policy changes .................................................................................................................................................. ¥50 ¥44 ¥73 ¥124 ¥171 ¥231 ¥292 ¥985Adjustment for fiscal dividend 8 ............................................................................................................................................. ¥3 ¥7 ¥14 ¥23 ¥32 ¥41 ¥50 ¥170Total adjustments and policy changes ................................................................................................................................... ¥52 ¥50 ¥86 ¥146 ¥204 ¥276 ¥350 ¥1,163House policy deficit ................................................................................................................................................................. 158 180 146 120 96 40 ¥1 NA

1 Projections assume that discretionary spending is equal to the spending limits that are in effect through 1998 and will increase with inflation after 1998.2 The budget resolution was based on CBO’s April 1995 baseline projections of mandatory spending and revenues, except for a limited number of adjustments.3 The budget resolution baseline assumed that the 1998 rebenchmarking of the CPI by the Bureau of Labor Statistics will result in a 0.2 percentage point reduction in the CPI compared with CBO’s December 1994 economic projections.4 The budget resolution baseline made adjustments related to revised accounting of direct student loan costs, expiration of excise taxes dedicated to the Superfund trust fund as provided under current law, the effects of enacted legis-

lation, and technical corrections.5 Savings from freezing 1996–2002 appropriations at the nominal level appropriated for 1995.6 Increases in statutory caps on discretionary spending to reflect shifts from mandatory spending to discretionary spending embodied in welfare reform provisions included in reconciliation bills. The cap adjustments are specified in Title

XX of the bill.7 Revenue increases are shown with a negative sign because they reduce the deficit.8 CBO has estimated that balancing the budget by 2002 would result in lower interest rates and slightly higher real growth that could lower federal interest payments and increase revenues by $170 billion over the fiscal year 1996–

2002 period. See Appendix B of CBO’s April 1995 report. ‘‘An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1996.’’Source.—Congressional Budget Office.Notes.—NA=not applicable; CPI=consumer price index. Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10858 October 26, 1995TABLE 3.—HOUSE RECONCILIATION MANDATORY SPENDING AND REVENUE CHANGES BY TITLE

[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]

Title 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1996–2002

I—Agriculture:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.9 ¥1.9 ¥1.9 ¥1.9 ¥1.9 ¥2.5 ¥2.5 ¥13.3

II—Banking and Financial Services:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥6.4 (1) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 ¥5.3Revenues 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Deficit .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥6.4 (1) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 ¥5.3

III—Commerce:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.3 ¥2.9 ¥2.7 ¥4.0 ¥3.7 ¥3.2 ¥1.9 ¥18.7

IV—Economic and Educational Opportunities:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥1.4 ¥1.1 ¥1.3 ¥1.5 ¥1.6 ¥1.7 ¥1.7 ¥10.2

V—Government Reform and Oversight:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.6 ¥1.0 ¥1.0 ¥1.0 ¥1.0 ¥1.0 ¥0.9 ¥6.5Revenues 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... ¥0.2 ¥0.4 ¥0.6 ¥0.6 ¥0.6 ¥0.6 ¥0.7 ¥3.7Deficit .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥0.8 ¥1.4 ¥1.6 ¥1.6 ¥1.6 ¥1.6 ¥1.6 ¥10.2

VI—International Relations:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) ¥0.1

VII—JudiciaryOutlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.5

VIII—National Security:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.4 ¥0.6 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.1

IX—ResourcesOutlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.1 ¥0.9 ¥0.2 ¥0.1 ¥0.6 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥2.1Revenues2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Deficit .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥0.1 ¥0.9 ¥0.2 ¥0.1 ¥0.6 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥2.1

X—Transportation and Infrastructure:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ (1) ¥0.1 (1) ¥0.6 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.8

XI—Veterans’ Affairs:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.3 ¥0.3 ¥0.5 ¥1.2 ¥1.4 ¥1.3 ¥1.4 ¥6.4

XII—Ways and Means Trade:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ (1) (1) (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1)Revenues2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

XIII—Ways and Means Revenues:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.1 ¥2.6 ¥2.8 ¥2.9 ¥3.1 ¥3.2 ¥3.3 ¥18.0Revenues2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... ¥0.6 ¥1.4 ¥3.1 ¥4.0 ¥4.5 ¥5.1 ¥6.1 ¥24.9Deficit .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥0.8 ¥4.1 ¥5.9 ¥6.9 ¥7.5 ¥8.3 ¥9.4 ¥42.9

XIV—Ways and Means Tax SimplificationRevenues2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 4.7

XV—Medicare:Outlays:

Medicare ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥7.9 ¥15.1 ¥26.9 ¥39.9 ¥49.2 ¥59.9 ¥71.3 ¥270.2Graduate medical education ................................................................................................................................. 0.0 1.3 1.5 2.3 3.1 3.6 4.0 15.8

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥7.9 ¥13.8 ¥25.4 ¥37.6 ¥46.1 ¥56.3 ¥67.3 ¥254.4XVI—Transformation of Medicaid:

Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥2.7 ¥6.9 ¥14.3 ¥22.6 ¥31.2 ¥40.8 ¥50.9 ¥169.5XVII—Abolishment of Department of Commerce:

Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (1)XVIII—Welfare reform:

Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥4.3 ¥13.4 ¥16.2 ¥18.4 ¥21.0 ¥22.1 25.2 120.6XIX—Contract with America Tax Cut:

Revenues2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... ¥7.8 34.1 40.3 44.3 43.6 43.8 47.2 245.7XX—Budget Process:

Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Totals:

Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥24.7 ¥45.6 ¥64.8 ¥91.2 ¥111.1 ¥131.9 ¥155.0 ¥624.4Revenues2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... ¥7.9 33.3 37.6 40.4 39.3 38.8 41.3 222.7Deficit .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥32.7 ¥12.3 ¥27.2 ¥50.8 ¥71.8 ¥93.1 ¥113.7 ¥401.7

Interactive effects:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 10.6

Totals:Outlays ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥24.7 ¥44.2 ¥63.2 ¥89.5 ¥109.2 ¥130.0 ¥153.0 ¥613.8Revenues ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥7.9 33.3 37.6 40.4 39.3 38.8 41.3 222.7Deficit .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥32.6 ¥11.0 ¥25.6 ¥49.1 ¥69.9 ¥91.2 ¥111.7 ¥391.1

1 Less than $50 million.2 Revenue increases are shown with a negative sign because they reduce the deficit.Note.—Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.Sources.—Congressional Budget Office; Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

b 0945

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman from New York[Mr. SOLOMON] for yielding me the cus-tomary 30 minutes of debate time, andI yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose therule, and the legislation it makes inorder—the budget reconciliation billdrafted by the Republican leadership.

The importance of the legislation be-fore us cannot be overstated. It is ameasure that makes drastic changes ina huge number of Federal programsand services; a measure that will di-rectly affect virtually every American.Yet the rule for its consideration al-lows the House to consider only onesubstitute, and one motion to recom-mit. And, the rule limits the remainingtime for general debate to just 3 hours,plus 1 hour for debate on the sub-stitute.

It is true, as our friends on the otherside of the aisle have pointed out, thatthis is a typical rule for a budget rec-onciliation bill. But this is not a typi-cal reconciliation bill; it is not a billthat has been developed through thenormal reconciliation process but,rather, one that has been brought tothe House floor through actions of theRepublican leadership that constitutean extremely serious abuse of the legis-lative process.

In years past, reconciliation billswere drafted in open committee meet-ings. When committees acted on theirreconciliation instructions, Membersof both parties had the opportunity todebate the issues and offer amend-ments. After committees acted, theBudget Committee reviewed and re-ported the final bill, and after that, theRules Committee issued a rule for itsconsideration. All this was done in fullview of the press and the public. Inother words, reconciliation bills werethe products of an open, democratic,deliberative, and accountable process.

We knew what the bills contained, andwho had agreed to the provisions inthem.

The bill before us now, however, con-tains critical changes in agricultureprograms, in the civil service retire-ment system, in tax policy, in thestructure of a Federal department, andother important provisions that werenot considered by the committees ofjurisdiction, nor reviewed by the Budg-et Committee. Some of the provisionswere not even finalized until last night.

These portions of the bill were draft-ed behind the closed doors of theSpeaker’s office, where decisions werealso made to drop certain provisionsfrom the committee reported version ofthe bill. Even as the Rules Committeewas conducting its hearing yesterday—and even as general debate on the billhad begun on the floor—decisions werestill being made by the Republicanleadership about the contents of theplan we would be asked to vote ontoday.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10859October 26, 1995We find the disregard for the normal

legislative process that has been dem-onstrated by this process profoundlydisturbing. We believe it is a huge in-justice to the Members of the Houseand, far more important, to the peoplewe represent.

And we, the Democratic minority,are not alone in our view of what ishappening here. A recent editorial inRoll Call described what is going on bysaying:

Speaker Newt Gingrich is indisputably pro-viding strong direction for the House, but inthe process he and his hand-picked leader-ship are running roughshod over the congres-sional committee system and depriving mi-nority Democrats, rank-and-file Repub-licans, and even committee chairmen of thepower to shape legislation. The questionarises: Is this democracy or rule by polit-buro?

That’s not a Democratic sympathizerspeaking; that’s a newspaper that wasequally, if not more, critical of the waythe Democratic Party ran the House.

The point is, the bill before us didnot arrive through the typical process,and therefore the highly restrictiverule for its consideration cannot be jus-tified on the basis of the restrictiverules used for reconciliation bills inthe past. At the very least, the rule forthis particular reconciliation billshould provide the House with the op-portunity to consider amendments tothose sections of the bill that weredrafted outside of the normal commit-tee process.

We also object to the rule’s waiver ofclause 5(c) of rule XXI, which requiresa three-fifths vote for any bill whichcontains a Federal income tax rate in-crease. That rule, as Members recall,was adopted at the beginning of thisCongress to make it more difficult topass an income tax rate increase.

We believe that the Republican rec-onciliation bill would raise incometaxes on 8 million American workingfamilies because of the bill’s change inthe earned income tax credit. Memberson the other side of the aisle have triedto assure us that, no, this bill does notraise income taxes. If that, in fact, isthe case, we see no reason for the pro-tection this rule provides against thethree-fifths vote requirement for a billthat raises income taxes.

Mr. Speaker, of even greater concernto us than the procedural abuse wehave seen in this year’s reconciliationprocess is the actual legislation thatprocess has produced.

Many of us applaud the fact that theRepublican leadership set a goal of 7years for bringing the Federal budgetinto balance. But we think that thisparticular plan reaches that goal thewrong way, and that the Republicanleadership is misleading the Americanpeople by justifying the drastic spend-ing cuts in their plan as necessary toreach a balanced budget. The fact is, itis not necessary to make such extremespending cuts in order to balance thebudget, and that will be clearly dem-onstrated by the Stenholm-Orton-Pe-terson plan that will be offered as analternative to the Republican plan.

Furthermore, contrary to the rhet-oric surrounding the Republican plan,the greatest significance of this meas-ure is not its role in producing a bal-anced budget. Of far greater con-sequence is the fact that it will resultin a monumental shift of resourcesfrom poor and middle-income Ameri-cans to the wealthiest Americans. It isa cruel, meanspirited, and misguidedmeasure that will reward well-to-doAmericans and special interests, andpunish the poor.

What else but cruel can you considera measure that provides a tax creditworth several hundred dollars per childfor families earning $200,000, but notfor families earning $20,000? That cutstaxes for the top 1 percent of earnersby an average of $14,000, while raisingtaxes for millions of working families?What is fair about requiring hard-working, but low-wage American work-ers to foot the bill for a tax cut for doc-tors and lawyers and corporate execu-tives and—yes—Members of Congress?

What else but meanspirited can youconsider a bill that pulls the rug outfrom under working families by cuttingnot only the earned income tax credit,but also Medicaid, food stamps, childcare assistance—the support that par-ents working in low-wage jobs need tostay off welfare?

What else but misguided can you con-sider a bill that raises the cost of stu-dent loans—the primary means avail-able to moderate-income families togive their children a leg up in life? Abill that jeopardizes the retirement se-curity of millions of working Ameri-cans by allowing corporations to raidworkers’ pension funds? And yet, at thesame time, abolishes the alternativeminimum tax that ensures that profit-able corporations are not able to usemultiple tax loopholes to escape pay-ing taxes?

What else but wrongheaded can youconsider a bill that provides specialdeals for industries that want to usethe natural resources that belong to allAmericans—giveaways of Federal re-sources for mining, timber, ranching,and oil and gas interests? And specialdeals for concessionaires in our na-tional parks, and for ski operators inour national forests?

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule, for aterrible bill. I urge Members to vote‘‘no’’ on the previous question, ‘‘no’’ onthe rule, and ‘‘no’’ on the bill.


Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. GOSS], one of the Members of thisHouse who has done more to bringabout some fiscal sanity than othersthat I know and is a member of theCommittee on Rules.

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank thedistinguished gentleman from GlensFalls, NY [Mr. SOLOMON], the chairmanof the Committee on Rules, for yielding

me this time. I did want to underscoresome of the points that he made in hisexcellent opening remarks.

This truly is a momentous day andcertainly one of the most noteworthyin my short tenure as a member of thisbody. Before the sun sets today, we ac-tually are going to pass a 7-year bal-anced budget plan that wipes out ournational deficits and allows us to beginthe process of paying down our enor-mous Federal debt. That is a major ac-complishment and major good news forAmerica.

We will deliver this product to theAmerican people, because it is theright thing to do and because theyhave asked us to do it. No doubt wewill continue to hear the words ofdoom, gloom, and fear from those onthe other side who are still imprisonedin the status quo. Given the dire pre-dictions and the red hot rhetoric wehave already heard from the naysayers,some people might conclude that thisis just about cuts, that we are guttingall that is great and good about Amer-ica, instead of what we are reallydoing, which is excising layers of gov-ernment fat that have grown up overthe past 40 years.

In fact, it may surprise people toknow that Federal spending under thisproposal is actually slated to grow, Isaid grow, significantly in each of the 7years ahead. In fact, this plan startswith an annual Federal spending pro-gram of $1.5 trillion and ends with anannual spending program that is a full$300 billion more than that. Yet in that7th year, 2002, we will have also bal-anced the budget.

Now, how do we do that? It is pos-sible because we are allowing our econ-omy to grow. We are creating jobs, op-portunities for Americans to work, op-portunities to expand our economy,while at the same time we control thecancerous growth of rampant, runawayFederal spending which so many haveclosed their eyes to for so long.

Two years ago I stood in staunch op-position to President Clinton’s budgetreconciliation bill, the largest tax hikein history. Three years before that Iopposed the deal worked out betweenPresident Bush and congressionalDemocrats. Both of these budgets hadtwo basic flaws. They allowed for con-tinued deficits as far as the eye couldsee, and they raised taxes at a timewhen we should have been addressingour chronic spending problem.

This year is different. We are elimi-nating redundant and wasteful spend-ing. We are preserving and strengthen-ing our vital health care programs,Medicare and Medicaid. We are reform-ing welfare, and we are allowing allAmericans to keep more of what theyearn by lowering taxes. It is theirmoney, not Washington’s.

Mr. Speaker, as one would expect,given a change of this magnitude, therehave been disagreements on individualitems within the package. Indeed,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10860 October 26, 1995there are several elements of this billthat remain troubling to me, but Ihave concluded that the fundamentaland overriding interest of balancingthe Federal books while unshacklingthe American people from the grip ofexcessive Federal Government far out-weighs the drawbacks of certain of theitems. In fact, Washington does notknow it all.

Mr. Speaker, with all the rhetoricsurrounding this debate, I recall thewords of President Theodore Rooseveltwho said, ‘‘Aggressive fighting for theright is the noblest sport the world af-fords.’’ We are today engaged in such anoble sport. We are preserving the in-tegrity of the U.S. Government and theviability of America for our children,our grandchildren, our parents, andourselves. I am proud of that effort,and I obviously support this rule to getus started along this 7-year path tobalance the budget.

Notwithstanding the points from mygood friend and colleague from Califor-nia, Mr. BEILENSON, about managementprocedures, I believe that this is a fairrule and an appropriate rule for thereconciliaton budget process, and I cer-tainly think it is fairer than the onewe saw in the previous year. I urge sup-port for the rule and support for thebill.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromMassachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY], our dis-tinguished friend and the rankingDemocratic member of the Committeeon Rules.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy colleague from California for yield-ing.

Mr. Speaker, The more I look at thisbill, the more horrified I become.

This bill is an enormous collection ofheartless attacks on American chil-dren, senior citizens, and working fam-ilies.

And the worst part, the most dis-appointing aspect of this whole hor-rible collection of mean-spirited cuts—is that they are made in order to lowertaxes for the very, very rich.

Mr. Speaker, that is not why we weresent to Congress.

We were not sent here to cut $270 bil-lion from Medicare on which 40 millionseniors rely; We were not sent here tocut $182 billion from Medicaid, a pro-gram 4.4 million American childrendesperately need but will not get.

We were not sent here to cut $54 mil-lion from energy assistance for work-ing families. And we certainly were notsent here to do all of that, in order toparcel out goodies to the very rich.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is too out-rageous to believe but it is true with-out these Medicare cuts, this sup-posedly balanced budget has an $82 bil-lion deficit.

Last week’s Medicare vote and thisvote are the same thing. Any one of mycolleagues who votes for this bill isvoting to put the squeeze on grand-mothers, grandfathers, children, andworking families, in order to give a taxbreak to the very rich.

This is an outrageous excuse for abill and if it becomes law, it will meansome very dark days for many Ameri-cans.

This bill, takes from the mouths ofbabes, from the health care of seniors,from the education of students, andgives straight to the pockets of therich.

I urge my colleagues to defeat theprevious question.

b 1000

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio[Ms. PRYCE], a new member of theCommittee on Rules this year whobrought wisdom and common sense toour Committee on Rules and our Con-gress, a former judge from Columbus,OH.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ampleased to rise in support of this rule.Once again, this House faces an his-toric opportunity to choose betweenthe policies of the status quo or tochart a bold new path for the future.

The Democrats argue that we aregoing too far too fast. Yet many on ourside of the aisle believe we have notgone nearly far enough. The truth isthe Republican Congress has workedlong and hard to bring us to this mo-ment in time when we are about topass legislation to end years of rapidlyexpanding Government and to startthis pendulum swinging the other way.Very simply, the bill before us willshift the focus of Government fromquantity to quality and from spendingto service.

Mr. Speaker, our national debt isnearly $5 trillion. It is very hard formere mortals to comprehend $5 tril-lion. So here is an example paraphrasedfrom the Wall Street Journal that canhelp us understand. Let us say Con-gress will try to pay the $5 trillion na-tional debt by putting $1 every secondinto a special account. If 1 million sec-onds adds up to 12 days, then 1 billionseconds is roughly 32 years. And 1 tril-lion seconds is nearly 32,000 years.

In order to pay off the debt, Congresswould have to deposit $1 into the ac-count every second for the next 160,000years. That is more time than theamount of time that has passed sincethe Ice Age.

As our author of this legislation, thegentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] toldthe Committee on Rules yesterday, ifyou had a business which lost a milliondollars a day since the time that Christwalked on this earth, your businessstill would be far better off than thiscountry is now.

Mr. Speaker, we have to get thisunder control. Lately many of myfriends on the other side of the aislehave accused Republicans of beingheartless, saying our budget is an at-tack on children. Yet a child borntoday will have to pay $187,000 in his orher lifetime just to pay the interest onthis national debt.

So I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is socompassionate about spending moneywe simply do not have and then sad-

dling our children and grandchildrenwith this enormous debt? Is it compas-sionate to condemn our children to alower standard of living than we enjoy?The answer is clearly no. Further, itsimply is arrogant to believe thatWashington has a monopoly on com-passion, that only Federal solutionscan address problems on the State andlocal level.

Our plan, Mr. Speaker, suggests thatthere is more compassion at the levelof local government with our Gov-ernors, with our mayors, with our citycouncils than there is in nameless,faceless Federal bureaucrats.

In closing, let me say that HouseResolution 245 is a responsible rule. Iurge my colleagues to adopt it and theunderlying legislation so that we canbegin to swing the pendulum back toan era of growth, productivity and fi-nancial security for our children andfor future generations.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromKentucky [Mr. WARD].

Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, when thebudget resolution upon which today’sbill is being based was considered bythis body, I stood in this very spot tochallenge it based on House rule XXI,which requires a three-fifths vote ofthe House in order to increase taxes, ameasure that was supported by thegentleman from Texas [Mr. ARMEY] andthe gentleman from Georgia [Mr. GING-RICH], and a rule that I wholeheartedlysupported as a freshman on my firstday here.

Speaker GINGRICH ruled me out oforder by saying that the budget was aresolution, not a bill. He advised me tostudy the rules. Well, Mr. Speaker, Ihave studied the rules. I find that theissue before us today is a bill, and itshould have this rule applied to it. Butnow I am told that after midnight, lastnight, today’s debate was arranged insuch a way that, although SpeakerGINGRICH said on January 4 that no taxincrease would take place without athree-fifths majority, that this billwould be exempt from that rule. If it isa tax increase, it should require athree-fifths majority; and, if the rule isbeing waived today, it must be a taxincrease.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. DOGGETT].

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our Re-publican budget chairman is correct.The pendulum of power has swung. Ithas swung smack-dab into the faces ofAmerican seniors, smack-dab into thefaces of students trying to get a fulleducation and into the faces of workingAmericans who want to claim a shareof the American dream.

They give us a new sick tax for theold. They raise new barriers to edu-cation for the young and more taxes onworking Americans. That is why wecall this Republican billwreckonciliation; it is a wreck forworking American families.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10861October 26, 1995Of course, they spell it different.

They leave off the W. They call it rec-onciliation, like after a divorce. Butyou know, they are still so divorcedfrom reality in America, the reality ofwhat it is to work hard, to try to makeends meet for a family, the reality ofwhat it is to survive on a Social Secu-rity check and rely on America, so di-vorced from a reality that theirspokesman, our Republican colleaguefrom North Carolina, thinks $183,000 islower middle class.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I sit here in amazementwhen I listen to this. We are supposedto be responsible people. When youlook at what we are doing with thisbudget, my colleagues, we are not cut-ting WIC. We are not cutting HeadStart. We are not cutting GreenThumb. We are not cutting the RSVprograms which are such good pro-grams. We are not cutting school lunchprograms.

Let me tell Members what we aredoing. We are reconstructing this Fed-eral Government. Do Members knowhow we are doing it? We are doing itthe same way that business and indus-try are forced to do it in order to sur-vive, to make a profit.

I want Members to listen to some ofthese words because if they read thesebills here, this is what this contains.This does not contain cuts for the trulyneedy. My colleagues will not hear memention one word about it.

This is what we are doing. We aremerging. Ever hear that word before?We are consolidating. We are eliminat-ing. We are privatizing. We aredefunding, and we are outright abolish-ing dozens of antiquated, duplicative,and unnecessary bureaus, agencies, ad-ministrations, offices, commissions,and for the first time whole depart-ments.

Do my colleagues know who issquealing like stuck pigs? It is the bu-reaucrats inside Washington, the tax-ers, the spenders, the regulators. Theseare the people that are being cut, andwe are going to balance this budget nomatter what because what is compas-sionate about piling this kind of irre-sponsible debt on our children and ourgrandchildren?

Mr. Speaker, you have grandchildren.I have four of them now. We are goingto have some fiscal sanity in this bodystarting here today. This bill is goingto pass with overwhelming support inthis body, and we will bring about fis-cal sanity.


Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromWest Virginia [Mr. WISE].

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, after all thedistinguished chairman of the Commit-tee on Rules has said about mergingand acquisition and all that, they arecutting. They are not only cutting;they are gutting.

Balancing the budget is about bal-ancing sacrifice. There is no balance of

sacrifice here. People get to keep theirown money, I hear. Let me tell youwho is keeping their own money. Earnover $100,000 a year, you are about 1percent of the population, you get tokeep $2,400. Earn $350,000, you get tokeep $14,000.

If you are in West Virginia and youare one of the 85 percent of our Statethat earns less than $50,000, you willpay $530 more out of pocket either inincreased taxes or lost program bene-fits such as student loans and Medi-care. Why is it that Medicare has to becut $270 billion, when the Medicaretrustees themselves, the stewards ofthe fund, say only $90 billion is suffi-cient? The reason is for a tax cut, a taxcut that goes to the wealthiest individ-uals in this country.

We are talking about balancing budg-ets. But we are not talking here aboutbalancing sacrifice. West Virginianssay we all know we have to come to thetable. We all know we have to givesomething. But when 85 percent of thepeople are having to give directly outof their pockets, directly out of theirmiddle class and middle income abili-ties to make sure that those over$100,000 are able to keep far more oftheir money, that is not balanced sac-rifice.

Mr. Speaker, we must, oppose thisresolution and this bill. This is abouttax breaks for the wealthiest individ-uals, not about balancing budgets.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Texas [Mr. ARMEY],the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to just take a moment to point outthat the previous speaker who opposestax relief in this bill opposes tax relieffor 155,000 working families in his homeState of West Virginia, including 13,392families who would have their entireFederal income tax burden eliminatedby the budget bill that he opposestoday.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 30 seconds to the gentleman fromWest Virginia [Mr. WISE].

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the majorityleader does not point out that he raisestaxes on 70,000 working lower incomeWest Virginians, those under $24,000 ayear. He does not point out that thetax bill he supported 2 years ago wouldhave greatly given the wealthiest a taxbreak while the lowest income WestVirginians would have received a taxincrease. He does not point out that heis taking money out of 300,000 seniorWest Virginians, 400,000 of those onMedicaid, 700,000 total.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Texas.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, nordoes he point out that every Texasgrandmother and young child is worthhalf as much as one in New York underhis bill.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 1 minute to the distinguishedgentleman from Utah [Mr. ORTON].

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker. I rise to re-luctantly oppose the rule. I am reluc-tant because at least we will have anopportunity to present the coalitionbudget. But I oppose the rule becausewe only get 30 minutes to explain it,which simply is not enough. So let metake 45 minutes to point out onechange in our budget.

We assume a change in the ConsumerPrice Index. The Consumer Price Indexis an assumption, an economic assump-tion. Virtually all of the economists,including Alan Greenspan, have indi-cated that the CPI formula overstatesinflation by up to a percentage point.Ours is not the only budget to makethis assumption or make this change.In the Republican budget originallythere was a six-tenths of a percentagechange. There is now a two-tenths of apercentage change.

Let me simply say, I hope that wecan really debate issues and we will notbe attacked as raising taxes or cuttingSocial Security as a result of this. Wehave got virtually all of the Repub-licans on record who spoke in the de-bate of the original resolution sayingthat this is not any such tax increase.It is simply an economic formulachange. I hope we will not get intothat.

The Speaker has indicated that he infact would support such a change if thePresident would, but somebody has gotto step forward and propose it. We aredoing that.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker. Iyield 1 minute to our friend, the gen-tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-NEDY].

(Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusettsasked and was given permission to re-vise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, in the words of the greatmovie ‘‘Cool Hand Luke,’’ what wehave here is a failure to communicate.

We have Republicans accusing Demo-crats of being stuck in the old FDRpolicies, but the truth of the matter is,it is the Republicans that are stuck inthe FDR era. Anybody that has bene-fited in any way from Governmentspending is the target of their cuts.

They go about providing a phenome-nal tax cut to the richest people in thiscountry, providing literally $20,000 ayear to people with incomes above$350,000 and, at the same time, go aboutraising taxes on the some of the poor-est people and the working families ofthis country. They cut off studentloans. They go after the nursing homestandards. They go after a $450 billioncut on Medicare and the Medicaid andsenior citizens of this country.

Why not ask everybody to partici-pate? Why increase the defense spend-ing this year? Why provide a tax cut tothe wealthiest people in the country?Why not ask corporate America to par-ticipate instead of lavishing on cor-porate American additional taxbennies? Why not ask us to stand up toGallo Wine, to stand up to McDonald’shamburgers, to stand up to the mining

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10862 October 26, 1995industry, the lumber industry, and allof the industries that have so manybenefits that are sprinkled throughoutthis bill?

Let us come up with a balanced budg-et but let us do it with equity andequanimity in terms of this country’spolicies.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker. I yield30 seconds to the distinguished gen-tleman from California [Mr. DREIER] amember of the Committee on Rulesfrom Claremont, CA.

b 1015Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker. I appre-

ciate the 30 seconds from the distin-guished gentleman from New York [Mr.SOLOMON], my chairman, and I do so tosimply point out that my very goodfriend, the gentleman from Massachu-setts [Mr. KENNEDY], who appears tohave left the floor here, opposes tax re-lief to 656,736 working families in hisState of Massachusetts including 77,225families who would have their entireFederal tax burden eliminated underthe budget bill that he is opposingtoday, and I think it is a sad com-mentary.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker. Iyield 1 minute to the gentlewomanfrom Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE].

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, Iam here this morning to tell the truth,and I appreciate the gentleman fromCalifornia, my Republican colleague’sunwavering support of $270 billion inMedicare cuts, but I am not sure if herealizes that 1,200 families in his dis-trict will be cut off the earned incometax credit and will be paying moretaxes or not getting the benefit of theearned income tax credit by this budg-et reconciliation proposal.

Since, I have come this morning tothe part of the truth squad, I know myRepublican colleagues realize what theBudget Reconciliation Act means toAmericans. It means they are going tobe locked up and hauled off to jail asthis picture reflects of a senior citizenin handcuffs taken away from the oneRepublican held hearing on Medicare.That is what happened in the U.S. Con-gress when someone came, an elderlycitizen, to protest the Medicare cuts.The truth should be told on how severethese cuts will be on seniors, workingfamilies, children, and our youth.

We do not have a budget deficit prob-lem which has been misrepresented bythe Republican majority. What we haveis a U.S. budget deficit that has fallenfor the last three years. From a high ofalmost $300 billion to much lower andit is going down every year. We havethe best economy in the WesternWorld. Other nations, like Japan andGermany, are wondering how we do it.We have the lowest unemployment,but, as my colleagues know, what weneed in America is for working menand women, to have higher incomes, weneed to make sure Medicare is in placeand we certainly do not need $270 bil-

lion in tax cuts, eliminating studentloans and health care for our children.We need student loans for our children.We need health care through Medicareand Medicaid. This budget can be bal-anced with cuts that do not hurt work-ing men and women.

This is what is happening to theAmerican people. Stop the untruths,this debate today should be on how thisbudget should be for America notagainst America.

My Speaker, I add quotes from thefollowing article for the RECORD:

U.S. BUDGET DEFICIT FALLS FOR 3D YEAR

(By John M. Berry)The deficit hit a record $290 billion in fis-

cal 1992 before dropping to $255 billion in 1993and $203 billion in 1994. Strong economicgrowth as well as the spending cuts and taxincreases in Clinton’s 1993 legislation havebeen responsible for bringing the deficit toits lowest level since 1989.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield15 seconds to the gentleman fromClaremont, CA [Mr. DREIER].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe distinguished gentleman from NewYork [Mr. SOLOMON], the distinguishedchairman, once again for being extraor-dinarily generous with his time, and Iwould like to simply point out that thegentlewoman from Texas [Ms. JACK-SON-LEE], my friend, in opposing thisbill is opposing tax relief to 2,016,767Texans including 285,572 hard-workingTexans who will be taken completelyoff the Federal income tax roll, and itis a very sad commentary on the rep-resentation made.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 30 seconds to the gentlewomanfrom Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE].

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman from California[Mr. DREIER] for his dutiful commenton my representation. Let say to himthat I am proud of my representationbecause I know that the people inTexas will lose $24 million in Medicareover 7 years by this cut. Texas will seeover 200,000 children lose medicaid cov-erage. Many of our Texas students whoget student loans will also not getthose student loans. Local health serv-ices for those using the Harris CountyHospital District and those in need ofmental health services being lost! Andlet me tell my Republican colleagues itis more important for me to stand formy constituents. They will be hurt bythis budget reconciliation bill. This isan absolute travesty.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromNew Jersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I justwanted to point out that in the gen-tleman from California’s district 22,750taxpayers will see their taxes increasedunder this proposal.

Basically what we are seeing here arehuge cuts in Medicare/Medicaid andother programs for middle-incomeAmericans and low-income Americansin order to pay for tax breaks for thewealthy. I wanted to just talk brieflyabout those low-income seniors, mostlywindows, which were discussed last

week on the Medicare bill, and howthey are going to be negatively im-pacted by this Medicaid bill and the re-fusal of the committee on Rules to in-clude a provision, an amendment,today that would have protected them.

Right now those seniors who are eli-gible for Medicaid have Medicaid payfor their part B premium under Medi-care which means that that $46 permonth, which will go up to and doubleunder the Republican proposal to al-most $90 per month that these low-in-come seniors have to pay in order toget their part B Medicare premium,that pays for their doctor’s bill. Rightnow that is paid for by Medicaid, butthis bill would eliminate that guaran-tee for those people, for those millionsof widows and other low-income sen-iors, who right now have their doctorbills and their doctor benefits paid forby Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I went before the Com-mittee on Rules yesterday, and I askedthat that amendment be consideredthat would provide that guarantee, andwe were denied that even though lastweek on the floor of this House at theconclusion of the Medicare debate theSpeaker, Speaker GINGRICH, said thatthis legislation was going to providethat guarantee for those widows andfor those low-income seniors. Mr.Speaker, I want all my colleagues toknow that there is no guarantee in thisbill for those individuals, particularlythose widows. The Speaker said that hewas going to provide the guarantee.There is no guarantee. When we wentbefore the Committee On Rules andasked that that be placed in ordertoday, we were told, no, it would not beconsidered.

I think it is really terrible that in acontext where it is suggested and it isbeing implemented that all thesemajor tax cuts for wealthy Americansand those low-income seniors will nothave their physician’s bills paid underthis legislation.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom Connecticut [Ms. DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, today’shistoric vote will have a profound im-pact on the people we were sent here torepresent. As the debate draws to aclose, Members must stand and becounted on a fundamental question,will we provide lavish tax breaks forwealthy people and for multinationalcorporations or will we protect Medi-care for America’s seniors. The Ging-rich plan that the House will vote ontoday is a shameful payoff for the richand well-connected special interestspaid for by a $270 billion raid on Medi-care, and the American people know it.

Thirty years ago another Congresstook another historic vote to create ahealth care system for our Nation’sseniors. Not a single Republican votedfor that creation of Medicare, includ-ing the majority leader of the otherbody, and yesterday he bragged of that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10863October 26, 1995vote saying that we knew it would notwork.

On this side of the street SpeakerGINGRICH joined the trashing of Medi-care, and on Tuesday he revealed thereal GOP plan to destroy Medicare.Speaker GINGRICH said that we did notget rid of it in the first round becausewe do not think that that is politicallysmart, and he further said that we be-lieve that it will, Medicare will, witheron the vine.

Mr. Speaker, those comments to thatextent are sour grapes for seniors inthis country.

Today Republicans are closing in ontheir 30-year goal to end Medicare, butwhile Republican leaders say that Med-icare does not work, America’s seniorsknow that it does work, and for 30years it has worked. It has stood forgenerations as a sacred compact be-tween our Government and our seniors.It represents a core value system thathas made this country great. It em-bodies the principle that citizens whowork hard all their lives, raise theirchildren, pay their bills, and play bythe rules will not be thrown out ontothe street in their sunset years.

This budget has nothing to do withsaving Medicare or with paying off ourdebt. It has everything to do with taxcuts for the rich, and health care forthe seniors is an easy target. When thebells sound for Members to record theirvotes, I hope my colleagues will putthe American people before the specialinterests. The American people deserveno less.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from Florida [Mr. GIBBONS].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, it painsme to get up here and have to talkabout this subject, but it needs to besaid.

I served here in the House in 1965when Mr. DOLE voted against Medicare.I saw him do it, I heard him do it, andit pains me to hear that Speaker GING-RICH now says, yes, we have a plan toget rid of Medicare, but we cannot do itright now because, if we do, the seniorswill get mad at us.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the seniorsthis. This bill contains the Medicarecuts. The bill contains the end of Medi-care. Let me tell the seniors where it isin this bill. It is in the fail-safe devicethat the Republicans put in this Medi-care bill. It is tucked in their where wecannot see. We do not know it is goingto hit us, but it requires the Secretaryof HEW to make the cuts in Medicare,particularly in the fee-for-service partof Medicare, if all of their wonderful,dreamy goals are not met to cut $270billion out of Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, it is all in this billtoday, and Members of Congress shouldrealize that when they vote for thistoday, particularly Republican Mem-bers of Congress ought to realize, thatwhen they vote on this today, and lis-ten to me, Mr. SOLOMON, listen to me,listen to me:

When you vote for this today, you’revoting to end Medicare. You’re voting

to end Medicare. Don’t be hoodwinked.It is in your proposal. It is in there inthe fail-safe device that will put an endto Medicare, and the Gingrich-Doleplan to end Medicare is in this votetoday.

This is a serious, serious matter.This is not just about balancing thebudget. This is putting an end, thisproposal that DOLE and GINGRICH havecooked up, to get rid of Medicare.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman fromLoveland, CO [Mr. ALLARD], a very dis-tinguished Member of this body.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today,the 104th Congress will make history.We will enact a 7-year program thatwill balance the Federal budget for thefirst time in 33 years. For far too long,the Federal Government has lived toowell. It has done so at the expense ofhard-working Americans.

Deficits became a way of life for theFederal Government in the 1960’s,1970’s, and 1980’s. Unfortunately, theyhave continued into the 1990’s. Thisplan marks a fundamental departurefrom the past by finally putting UncleSam on a diet.

This new Congress has kept its com-mitment to our children and grand-children. We said we would balance thebudget, and we will do it.

Last spring, defenders of the statusquo defeated a balanced budget con-stitutional amendment. This was a set-back, and many observers felt that Re-publicans would then simply abandonthe hard work of actually balancingthe budget. The skeptics were wrong.They misjudged our resolve.

Those of us elected to Congress in re-cent years have been particularly com-mitted to changing the way the Fed-eral Government does business. Foryears, as a veterinarian, small businessowner, and State legislator, I watchedone Congress after another squanderour children’s economic future. I grewsick of it.

Even when the American peopleelected Ronald Reagan as President intwo successive landslides, the Congressignored his desire to slow the growth ofFederal spending. President Reaganwas fond of saying that ‘‘we could saythey [Congress] spend money likedrunken sailors, but that would be un-fair to drunken sailors.’’ At least ‘‘thesailors are spending their own money.’’

When I ran for Congress in 1990, Imade one principle commitment to thepeople of Colorado, I would do every-thing I could to balance the Federalbudget. That is why I am so proud tostand here today and cast what willsurely be one of the most importantvotes I will ever cast.

Judging by the rhetoric of those whooppose this plan one might get the im-pression that it contains devastatingcuts. This charge indicates how far re-moved from reality the defenders ofdeficits have drifted. This budget doesnot cut spending at all, it simply slowsthe rate of increase.

Let me review some very importantnumbers. Over the last 7 years Federal

spending totaled $9.5 trillion. Over the7 years of this balanced budget plan,1996–2002, the Federal Government willspend a total of over $12 trillion. WhereI come from that is an increase, and itis a very substantial one.

Similarly, for those who seem tothink the family and business tax cutsare excessive, I point out that over thelast 7 years total Federal tax receiptswere just under $8 trillion, while overthe next 7 years Federal tax receiptswill total $11.2 trillion. That also is anincrease. In fact, our tax cut reducesprojected tax receipts over the next 7years by only 2 percent. That’s right, 2percent less revenue. And we give themoney back to the hard-working fami-lies who earned it in the first place.

The modest tax cut makes particular sensein light of President Clinton’s revelation thateven he believes the 1993 tax hike was ex-cessive.

It is important to keep in mind why we mustbalance the budget. This endeavor is aboutmuch more than numbers. It is about the fu-ture standard of living for our children.

Much focus has been placed on the sup-posed pain of the budget restraint in our plan.This ignores the vast benefits of balancing thebudget.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspanhas stated repeatedly that balancing the budg-et will have a dramatic positive impact on theconfidence of American families. He has alsomade clear his belief that interest rates woulddrop significantly. This view is confirmed by arecent DRI/McGraw-Hill analysis for the Na-tional Association of Realtors. According totheir data, the average 30-year mortgage willdrop 2.7 percentage points. On a 30-year$50,000 mortgage at 81⁄4-percent interest,families would save over $1,000 a year in in-terest payments. Now that is a real differencein people’s lives.

Similarly, college loans would be muchmore manageable. A college student who bor-rows $11,000 at 8-percent interest will paymore than $2,000 less in total interest pay-ments if rates drop just 2 percent.

Another example comes with the farm sec-tor. While this budget reduces farm paymentsby $13 billion over 7 years, the AgricultureCommittee estimates that a 1.5-percent reduc-tion in interest rates will save farmers over$15 billion in payments on the outstandingfarm debt over the next 7 years. And underour Freedom to Farm plan those farmers willhave much more freedom to plant the cropsthey wish. They will also run their farms withfewer Agriculture Department bureaucratslending a helping hand.

These are just a few examples of how lowerinterest rates will help families and our econ-omy. Younger generations will benefit fromlower rates for decades to come.

But it is not just the young who benefit fromthis budget, it is also seniors. This is a seniorfriendly budget. We do not touch Social Secu-rity, and we still increase Medicare spendingby 6.5 percent a year. In the process we giveseniors much greater freedom and controlover the expenditure of their health care dol-lars.

I have been particularly gratified by thelarge number of letters I have received fromseniors who say ‘‘just do it!’’ They realize thatsome sacrifice will be required of them, but

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10864 October 26, 1995they want the budget balanced, an they knowthat we strengthen Social Security and Medi-care by getting our fiscal house in order.

Last year, we made a contract with Amer-ica. This balanced budget represents the veryessence of that contract—a Federal Govern-ment that will be smaller, less intrusive, andmore efficient. We have kept our contract, andin so doing we have done more to restorefaith in our form of government than has beendone in many years.

b 1030

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromNew Mexico [Mr. RICHARDSON].

(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, al-though I support a balanced budget,this Republican bill is too extreme. Ittakes our country in the wrong direc-tion.

I want to make it clear to the Amer-ican people exactly what is wrong withthis bill.

The Republican bill cuts studentloans and forces students and their par-ents to bear the burden of paying evenmore for a college education.

It makes excessive cuts to Medicareby increasing the average senior’s out-of-pocket cost by nearly $400 per yearin order to give a tax break for thewealthy.

It makes deep cuts in long term carethat will raise the cost for nursinghomes and will force seniors out ofnursing homes, or bankrupt their fami-lies who are trying to care for theirparents and grandparents.

It eliminates the guarantee of Medic-aid by threatening the health care ofover 36 million low-income children, el-derly, and disabled Americans—ourmost vulnerable Americans.

It curbs the quality of nursing homesfor elderly Americans by repealing theminimum Federal requirements.

And it cuts the earned income taxcredit which provides a modest taxbreak for the lowest-income families.These EITC cuts are a tax increase onthe lowest-income working families inour country.

I am pleased that there will be astrong democratic alternative that hasbeen praised by the Washington Post asa respectable, disciplined alternativethat is easily the best horse in therace. It will balance the budget by 2002without the extreme cuts in Medicare,it gets rid of any tax cut until thebudget is balaned, it preserves the taxcredit for the working poor, and it doesnot cut education.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to get ourHouse in order, yet it should be donethe smart way. The Republican billonly burdens hard-working, middleclass Americans for the benefit of thewealthy and it must be defeated.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromVirginia [Mr. MORAN].

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, when theRepublican Contract With America taxact came to the floor a few months ago,I raised the point that that was in vio-lation of the law that was passed at thevery beginning of this session, that any

tax increase required a three-fifthsvote of this Congress. At the time, theParliamentarian accepted what wascertainly a specious judgment on thepart of the Joint Tax Committee, thatit did not in fact increase taxes. Subse-quently, the Parliamentarian has con-ceded that it did, and in fact shouldhave been required to have a three-fifths vote of this Congress in order topass the House.

What has occurred subsequently, Mr.Speaker, is a recognition that much ofour tax legislation does in fact violatethat law that we chose to apply to our-selves, at least the Republican side ofthe aisle chose to apply it, but I thinkthe vast majority of us agree, and whatis most troubling is that in the biggestbills, for example, in the Medicare billthat we just took up, a $270 billion bill,the rule waived this three-fifths re-quirement.

There are some taxpayers who will infact pay a 50 percent tax increase onthe part B Medicare insurance pre-mium. They are not aware of that.Most Members in the Congress are not.Certainly, it is in gross violation of thethree-fifths requirement. That is whyit was waived.

Again today, this rule waives thatthree-fifths requirement. I understandthe argument that was raised, al-though I certainly cannot agree withit. Essentially what we are saying is itis inconvenient to apply it. There areseveral ways in which we violate thelaw that we earlier enacted. We passeda law that said that we ought to abideby the laws we apply to the private sec-tor. Certainly, we ought to complywith the laws that we pass for our-selves. We ought not waive it when infact it is inconvenient. That is what weare doing today.

I could cite several instances wherethere is, in fact, an income tax increasein this bill that in fact does requirethat there ought to be a three-fifthsrule in order to pass it. I grant you, wewill lose the vote on this rule, but theAmerican public needs to know that arule that they thought was going toprotect them is being waived as part ofthis rule.

The biggest one is an income tax in-crease that will apply to low-incomecitizens. I have a long list of every oneof the leadership of the Republican sideof the aisle here saying that this three-fifths vote was going to protect allAmericans. It did not say ‘‘all Ameri-cans of higher income,’’ it did not say‘‘all Americans except those of low-in-come.’’ It said all Americans, but todaylow-income Americans will pay muchmore in taxes that they cannot affordif we were to pass this bill.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 3 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from Michigan [Mr.BONIOR], the Democratic whip.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we’veheard talk about this budget. Butthere’s one thing that supporters ofthis budget have never understood.

They’ve never understood the soul ofthis Nation.

They’ve never understood the poetrythat is America.

The dignity of a senior who doesn’thave to beg to see a doctor.

The grace of a woman with a disabil-ity able to live on her own.

The pride of a student who’s earnedthe grades to go to college.

The self-respect of a mother workingher way out of poverty.

People who just need a chance. Whojust need someone to believe in them.

This budget doesn’t reward the bestin us. It appeals to the worst in us.

It doesn’t reward our best instincts.It tramples our most basic values.

We’re told that this is a courageousbudget. But there’s nothing courageousabout cutting Medicare, Medicaid, andstudent loans just to pay for tax breaksfor the wealthy.

We’re told that Medicare is beingsaved. But Tuesday, the Senate major-ity leader bragged he was proud of his1965 vote against Medicare saying ‘‘weknew it wouldn’t work.’’

And yesterday Speaker GINGRICHhimself told an insurance group, quote,‘‘We don’t get rid of (Medicare) inround one because we don’t think thatthat’s smart politically but we believeit’s going to whither on the vine.’’

This budget doesn’t save Medicare, itdestroys it. And now we have itstraight from the horse’s mouth.

This budget is nothing but the big-gest transfer of wealth from seniorsand working families to the wealthy inthe history of America.

I say to my Republican friends: don’tcome to this floor today and tell usthat this isn’t a tax break for thewealthy. Because 106 members of yourown conference once signed a letterthat said it was a tax break for thewealthy.

And don’t tell us that families willpay less under this budget. Because thebipartisan Committee on Taxation saysthat 7 out of 10 families will pay thesame or more.

It wasn’t a Democrat who said, and Iquote, ‘‘this is a tax increase on low in-come workers and the poor which isunconscionable at this time.’’ That wasJack Kemp—a Republican.

If this isn’t a tax increase then whydid you have to wave the rule that saysall tax increases require a vote ofthree-fifths of this House?

Mr. Speaker, the American people de-serve better. We may not have thevotes to beat this rule. We may nothave the votes to beat this budget. Butwe do have the votes to sustain a veto.

I urge my colleagues: Stop this taxincrease on families. Stop this destruc-tion of Medicare. Stop this war on ourkids. And say no to this shameful budg-et.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. DREIER], a member of theCommittee on Rules and one of themost fiscally conservative Members ofthis body.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 3 yearsago next month I had the opportunity,having worked hard in his campaign, tovote for the reelection of George Bush.Like most Republicans, I was saddened

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10865October 26, 1995that he was not reelected, but it reallybegan a new day for me. I was electedin 1980 and had served for 12 years withRepublican Presidents. I was ready totake on this new experience of servingwith a Member of the opposing politi-cal party down at 1600 PennsylvaniaAvenue.

A few weeks after the election Iwrote on Op-Ed piece in the Los Ange-les Times. The L.A. Times has beenheld up here this morning. In thatpiece I talked about the fact that ifBill Clinton remained a new kind ofDemocrat, as he said he was through-out his campaign, I would do every-thing that I possibly could to supporthim.

In fact, throughout his campaign, re-member, he talked about a balancedbudget. That is exactly what we arepursuing with this legislation. Hetalked about health care reform. Weare going at it a slightly different waythan he probably had envisaged in hiscampaign in dealing with Medicare,but he nonetheless did talk abouthealth care reform. He talked aboutwelfare reform, individual initiative,and responsibility. That is exactlywhat we are working on in this legisla-tion.

He also talked about the need for usto move ahead with reducing the taxburden on middle-income workingAmericans. We know that 75 percent ofthe tax reduction in this package goesto people earning less than $60,000 ayear. He also talked about reducing thecapital gains tax rate. Why? Becausehe knew that encouraging savings andinvestment and productivity would bekey to economic growth.

It seems to me that, as we look atthese items, along with his desire to re-duce the regulatory burden that heoutlined in his campaign, we, with thisreconciliation package, are in facthelping him keep his campaign prom-ises of 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that while thegentleman from New York [Mr. SOLO-MON] and the gentleman from Florida[Mr. GOSS] and I were yesterday in theCommittee on Rules saying ‘‘Gosh, ifyou look at the fact that over the next7 years we are going to see a 24-percentincrease, a 24-percent increase in thelevel of Federal spending,’’ that givessome of us a little concern. What itdoes is it shows that we are willing torecognize that there is a Democrat inthe White House, there are Democratsin both Houses of Congress, and we aretrying to do this in a bipartisan way.

Tragically, rather than recognizingthat it is a 24-percent increase, all theydo is describe it as draconian cuts. Weare working to protect, preserve, andstrengthen the Medicare system, con-trary to anything that has been said onthe other side of the aisle. Actually,this package does just that.

One of the great concerns in myState of California happens to be theissue of illegal immigration. While weare working toward a balanced budget

we are actually including three timesas much as the President does in hisbudget to deal with the issue of illegalimmigration.

Reimbursement for Medicaid. Wealso, in this package, are looking at re-imbursement to the States for the in-carceration of illegals. This rule willdeal with that issue, the Bliley amend-ment.

It seems to me that we have a greatresponsibility as Members of Congressto try to come together in a bipartisanway. I am very happy to say that ourparty does have the majority that weneed to pass this very important meas-ure, so we can get on that glidepath to-ward a balanced budget, so we can infact reduce the tax burden on workingAmericans, and so we can, as a byprod-uct of that, decrease interest rates andput into place the kind of governmentthat the American people desperatelywant.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ‘‘aye’’ vote onthis rule, and an ‘‘aye’’ vote for thereconciliation package.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself the remainder of our time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from California [Mr. BEILEN-SON] is recognized for 30 seconds.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iwould say first of all to my friend, thegentleman from California, that 22,750working families in his own districtwill have their taxes raised by this billthat they are so strongly supporting.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the pre-vious question. If the previous questionis defeated we shall offer an amend-ment which would do two things:Strike the increase on taxes on 8 mil-lion American working families thatthe bill causes by cutting the earnedincome tax credit; and it would, sec-ond, strike the provision in the rulewaiving the requirement for a three-fifths vote on any measure carrying aFederal income tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I include our amend-ment for the RECORD, and I urge a ‘‘no’’vote on the previous question.

The amendment referred to is as fol-lows:

On page 3, lines 1 and 2, strike ‘‘modifiedby the amendments printed in the report’’and insert ‘‘modified by the amendmentsprinted in section 3 of this resolution and inthe report’’.

On page 4, lines 7 through 9, strike ‘‘Clause5(c) of rule XXI shall not apply to the bill,amendments thereto, or conference reportsthereon.’’

At the end of the resolution, add the fol-lowing new section:

‘‘SEC. 3. Strike sections 13701 and 13702 (re-lating to earned income tax credit) and re-designate succeeding sections accordingly.’’

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of our time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman from New York [Mr. SOLOMON]is recognized for 33⁄4 minutes.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I justhave sat here for an hour in totalamazement, because I have heardspeaker after speaker after speakerafter speaker stand up and say ‘‘We

need to spend more money here, weneed to spend more money there.’’ Mr.Speaker, we have been spending moremoney here and more money there foryears and years. We have just about ru-ined this country.

It means so much to young peopletoday to be able to have a job and to beable to take home enough pay to savea little bit of money each week in orderto accumulate a downpayment on ahome, and then to have enough moneyin their take home pay to meet a mort-gage, and then to have children. Thatis what I did with my family manyyears ago. We had five children almostright in a row, and then we had to edu-cate them all and put them in collegeat one time, but we were able to accu-mulate a little bit of money in order tobuy that home and to educate thosechildren. Today, they cannot do that,because the Government takes so muchmoney out of their pocket. I hear thatwe are cutting this budget.

When some of our colleagues weregoing to the Speaker, the gentlemanfrom Georgia [Mr. GINGRICH] and com-plaining that we were cutting toomuch, or they wanted to spend morehere, I went to him and said ‘‘Mr.Speaker, I don’t think we are cuttingenough. We are going to spend $3 tril-lion more over the next 7 years than wespent in the last 7 years. That is an in-crease in spending almost across theboard. It is not enough.’’

b 1045

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues,it is a giant step in the right direction.

We have a $5 trillion debt today, andthat costs the taxpayers $250 billion ininterest just to pay the Netherlandsand Great Britain and the foreigncountries that hold our debt, $250 bil-lion that we cannot use to spend ontruly needed programs. When PresidentClinton gave us a budget this year, itcalled for $1 additional trillion addedto the national debt. Mr. Speaker, Iask my colleagues what that wouldhave done to that interest payment. Itwould have increased it by another $100billion.

God forbid in inflation had set backin like it did in the late 1970’s underPresident Jimmy Carter at 10 and 11and 12 percent. That interest paymentannually would have grown to $600 bil-lion. Every time you spend moremoney on interest, you have lessmoney to help the truly needy.

The fiscally responsible thing to do isto support this rule and support thisbill. We have to do it for the future ofthis country, and I urge support for therule and the bill.

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I op-pose this rule for a number of reasons.

This rule would send to the floor provisionswhich increase payroll taxes on Federal em-ployees and increase agency pension costswhich have never been reported by any com-mittee. It does so for one simple reason: to fi-nance tax cuts for the wealthy.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10866 October 26, 1995You can forget all of our chairman’s talk

about shoring up the fiscal stability of the Fed-eral retirement system. Both the General Ac-counting Office and the Congressional Re-search Service have confirmed that the sys-tem is sound and that it will always have suffi-cient assets to cover benefit payments to fu-ture and current retirees. There is no retire-ment crisis. These increases are unnecessary.

With respect to the Department of Com-merce, the Republican leadership has chosento ignore the work of at least five committeesthat marked-up this legislation. By doing so,the leadership also trashed the rules and pro-cedures which are in place to ensure that thisbody functions as a democratic institution.

I find it disingenuous that the Republicanleadership abolishes the Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency. They are still fundingthe Market Promotion Program to promotehamburgers overseas, but they abolish theonly agency willing to help minority-ownedbusiness get access to markets.

Third, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose anyeffort to include the Debt Collection Improve-ment Act as part of reconciliation. This is aviolation of committee procedure, and a viola-tion of good faith.

Take my word for it: Members on both sideswill regret passing this bill that takes moneyfrom the checks of poor Social Security recipi-ents, and requires our elderly constituents touse automatic funds transfers at a bank to col-lect their Social Security.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.This budget includes many provisions thatharm hardworking Americans. Several ofthese provisions do not belong in reconcili-ation. They deserve a separate vote. TheHouse should have a conversation on theseprovisions.

An example of these provisions is theearned income tax credit [EITC]. The EITC willbe drastically cut. The incentive to get off wel-fare and to work will be gutted. Jack Kemptestified on October 19 before the SenateSmall Business Committee and stated

‘‘I hope you guys do not go too far on re-moving the EITC because that is a tax in-crease on low income workers and the poorwhich is unconscionable at this time.’’

Another example is the corporate pensionreversion provision. I went to the Rules Com-mittee with several of my colleagues and re-quested that we have a separate debate onthis provision. We were denied. Corporationsshould not be allowed to raid pension funds.

There are many provisions in this budgetthat are unconscionable. Let’s go back to thedrawing board and come up with a budget thatwe can be proud to present to the people werepresent.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yieldback the balance of my time, and Imove the previous question.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have aparliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BURTON of Indiana). The gentlemanwill state it.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, am I cor-rect that the rule that we are about tovote on waives the requirement of a 60-percent majority for a bill carrying anincome tax rate increase?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That iscorrect.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a furtherparliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman will state it.

Mr. MORAN. On April 5, more than 6months ago, I came to this well andraised a point of order on a provision ofthe Contract With America Tax ReliefAct. It was H.R. 1215 that repealed sec-tion 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Codeaffecting the maximum rate for long-term capital gains.

While the intent of this provision wasto lower the capital gains rate, it actu-ally increased the tax rate on the saleof certain small business stocks from14 percent under current law to 19.8percent. At that time, the Speakerruled that this tax increase was notsubject to the three-fifth rule.

In a June 12 letter, however, fromHouse Parliamentarican Charles John-son, it appears that the ruling wasmade in error, and the original point oforder should have been sustained.

Mr. Speaker, am I correct in my sum-mation?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Tradi-tionally, the Chair does not rule on hy-pothetical questions or rule in advanceon questions not yet presented. TheChair so responded to a parliamentaryinquiry on October 19 during the con-sideration of a special order waivingthe precise rule proposed to be waivedby the pending special order. In otherwords, the Chair will not presume torespond to a question that is not pre-sented as a matter in which the Chairmight be required to hear argumentand render a decision.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a furtherparliamentary inquiry then.


Mr. MORAN. Is it possible to waivethis rule by a simple majority whichwas advertised by its sponsors as re-quiring a 60-percent majority for in-come tax rate increases, or does thisrule need a 60-percent majority for itsadoption?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Adop-tion of this rule only requires a major-ity vote.

Mr. MORAN. Despite the fact that itis waiving a rule that required a 60-per-cent majority?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That iscorrect.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have afurther parliamentary inquiry.


Mr. MORAN. Is it true that the billbefore us today contains other tax in-creases that would make this bill sub-ject to a three-fifths vote?

These additional taxes include a 50-percent tax penalty on Medicare-plusmedical savings accounts withdrawalsfor any purpose other than medicalcare.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regularorder. The gentleman is making aspeech.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am ex-plaining the parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair cannot rule on a bill that is notyet before the House.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the par-liamentary inquiry applies to the rulethat is before us and is about to bevoted on.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair has already ruled on that.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am item-izing six tax rate increases that shouldhave required a three-fifths vote, and Iwant to clarify that it would trigger athree-fifths vote.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair would point out that what thegentleman is referring to may be in abill that is not yet before the body, andthe Chair cannot rule on that until it isbefore the body, and the Chair has al-ready ruled on the matter before us.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, if I mayfurther clarify my intent, this is estab-lishing a precedent.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regularorder. This is not a parliamentary in-quiry. Let us get on with it. Come on.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Theadoption of this rule will waive therule that the gentleman is currentlyciting. The gentleman’s questions arehypothetical at this point.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I wouldask unanimous consent that the veryreal six tax increases that are con-tained in this bill be put into theRECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Virginia?

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ob-ject.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ob-jection is heard.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have aparliamentary inquiry.


Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is thesupermajority, the alleged taxpayerprotection provision rule that is beingsuspended here the same rule that wassuspended last week in the Medicaredebate?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair has just cited that it is clause5(c) of rule XXI that is being waived.

Mr. DOGGETT. So it was waived lastweek and waived this week.

Mr. Speaker, is this supermajorityprotection for taxpayers as alleged inpermanent suspension, or will it everbe applied?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That isnot a correct parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, may I in-quire of my friend from New York, Mr.SOLOMON, the chairman of the Commit-tee on Rules, if he understands that Iwas only attempting to put informa-tion into the RECORD.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the pre-vious question has been moved. If thegentleman wants to do it during thedebate on the bill, that is one thing,but we have moved the previous ques-tion and we want to get on with thebusiness. The gentleman knows that.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10867October 26, 1995The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on ordering the previousquestion.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe noes appeared to have it.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5of rule XV, the Chair announces thathe will reduce to a minimum of 5 min-utes the period of time within which avote by electronic device, if ordered,will be taken on the question of agree-ing to the resolution.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 228, nays191, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 738]

YEAS—228

AllardArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCobleCoburnCollins (GA)CombestCooleyCoxCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDavisDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDornanDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglish

EnsignEverettEwingFawellFields (TX)FlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFoxFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGundersonGutknechtHancockHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHostettlerHoughtonHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKimKingKingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTourette

LaughlinLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLongleyLucasManzulloMartiniMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcKeonMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MolinariMoorheadMorellaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPetriPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRiggsRobertsRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandSensenbrenner

ShadeggShawShaysShusterSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearns

StockmanStumpTateTauzinTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryTiahrtTorkildsenUptonVucanovichWaldholtzWalker

WalshWampWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer

NAYS—191

AbercrombieAckermanAndrewsBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BartonBecerraBeilensonBentsenBermanBevillBishopBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)CardinChapmanClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerDannerde la GarzaDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDurbinEdwardsEngelEshooEvansFarrFazioFilnerFlakeFogliettaFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGejdenson

GephardtGerenGibbonsGonzalezGreenGutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHarmanHastings (FL)HayesHefnerHilliardHincheyHoldenHoyerJackson-LeeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonKanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKleczkaKlinkLaFalceLantosLevinLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMontgomeryMoranMurthaNadlerNealOberstar

ObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardRahallRangelReedRichardsonRiversRoemerRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSchroederSchumerScottSerranoSkaggsSkeltonSlaughterSprattStarkStenholmStokesStuddsStupakTannerTaylor (MS)TejedaThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTorricelliTraficantVelazquezVentoViscloskyWardWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWilliamsWilsonWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYates

NOT VOTING—13

CraneFattahFields (LA)GreenwoodMcIntosh

MfumeMiller (CA)SisiskyTalentTowns

TuckerVolkmerWeldon (PA)

b 1112

Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’

Messrs. DELAY, HEINEMAN, andGORDON changed their vote from‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the previous question was ordered.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BURTON of Indiana). The question is onthe resolution.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I de-mand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The SPEAKER pro tempore. This

will be a 5-minute vote.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 235, noes 185,not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 739]

AYES—235

AllardArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCobleCoburnCollins (GA)CombestConditCooleyCoxCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDavisDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDornanDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFawellFields (TX)FoleyForbesFowlerFoxFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)

FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGundersonGutknechtHall (TX)HancockHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHostettlerHoughtonHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKimKingKingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLongleyLucasManzulloMartiniMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)

MolinariMontgomeryMoorheadMorellaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPetriPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRiggsRobertsRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysShusterSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStockmanStumpTannerTateTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThornberryTiahrtTorkildsenUptonVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)WellerWhite

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10868 October 26, 1995WhitfieldWickerWolf

Young (AK)Young (FL)Zeliff

Zimmer

NOES—185

AbercrombieAckermanAndrewsBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBeilensonBentsenBermanBevillBishopBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)CardinChapmanClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConyersCostelloCoyneCramerDannerde la GarzaDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDurbinEdwardsEngelEshooEvansFarrFattahFazioFilnerFlakeFlanaganFogliettaFordFrank (MA)FrostFurse

GejdensonGephardtGerenGibbonsGonzalezGordonGreenGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHarmanHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHoldenHoyerJackson-LeeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonKanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKleczkaKlinkLaFalceLantosLevinLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoranMurthaNadlerNeal

OberstarObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardRahallRangelReedRichardsonRiversRoemerRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSchroederSchumerScottSerranoSkaggsSlaughterSprattStarkStenholmStokesStuddsStupakTejedaThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTorricelliTraficantVelazquezVentoViscloskyWardWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWilliamsWilsonWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYates

NOT VOTING—12

Brown (FL)CraneFields (LA)Greenwood

MfumeMiller (CA)SisiskyTalent

TownsTuckerVolkmerWeldon (PA)

b 1121

Mr. BAESLER changed his vote from‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

So the resolution was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, Iask unanimous consent that all Mem-bers may have 5 legislative days inwhich to revise and extend their re-marks on the resolution just adopted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BURTON of Indiana). Is there objectionto the request of the gentlewomanfrom Utah?


f

LIST OF TAX INCREASES WHICHSHOULD REQUIRE A THREE-FIFTHS VOTE FOR PASSAGE

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to include a list ofthe six tax increases that require awaiver of the three-fifths vote into theRECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Virginia?

There was no objection.The list referred to is as follows:These are a total of six tax increases in this

bill. These increases are in direct violation ofa law enacted on the first day of this session,which should require a three-fifths vote forpassage. These tax increases are the follow-ing:

First, a 50 percent tax penalty on MedicarePlus Medical Savings Accounts for any pur-pose other than medical care;

Second, the Medicare Part B incomecontigent premium;

Third, repeal of the 5-year income averagingrule on lump sum pension distributions;

Fourth, increase in the phase-out rate forthe Earned Income Tax Credit;

Fifth, the new rates applied to expatriates;and

Sixth, the new tax imposed on gambling in-come of Indian tribes.

Mr. Speaker, would any or all of these taxincreases trigger the celebrated rule requiringa three-fifths vote majority for approval? Sinceyour answer is yes, but for the waiver of therule by the Republican leadership, it is impor-tant to note Mr. Speaker, when the history ofthis Congress is written, the main theme willbe about the majority’s unrelenting attack onthe poor and defenseless in our society, but achapter, however, should be reserved for itshypocrisy which is clearly evident today.

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, traveldelays last Tuesday, October 24, pre-vented me from casting my vote onH.R. 1595, the bill to move the U.S. Em-bassy to Jerusalem.

I would have voted ‘‘yes’’ on the billhad I been present for the vote.

f

SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDINGSOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGSTEST REFORM

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, pursu-ant to House Resolution 245, I call upthe concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res.109) expressing the sense of the Con-gress regarding the need for raising theSocial Security earnings limit, and askfor its immediate consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thegentleman the designee of the majorityleader?

Mr. HASTERT. Yes, Mr. Speaker.The Clerk read the title of the con-

current resolution.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-

ant to the rule, the gentleman for Illi-nois [Mr. HASTERT] will be recognizedfor 10 minutes, and the gentleman from

Indiana [Mr. JACOBS], who I presume isthe designee of the minority leader,will be recognized for 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Illinois [Mr. HASTERT].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 11⁄2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this reso-lution, which Senator DOLE and Sen-ator MCCAIN will be introducing in theother body, is very straightforward.Because of the unique rules of theother body, it is not possible for us tolift the Social Security earnings limitin the reconciliation bill before thisHouse today.

But an overwhelming majority ofthis House and of the other body favorsuch a move. In fact, the President ofthe United States, in his 1992 campaignplatform ‘‘Putting People First’’ alsoexpressed his commitment to liftingthe Social Security earnings limit.

We all agree that it is simply wrongto penalize low and middle income sen-iors who must work, with a tax rateequal to that of millionaires. Theseseniors are some of our most produc-tive and responsible workers. They areworking to provide for themselves.They do not want to be a burden totheir families or the taxpayers of thisNation. We should be rewarding suchbehavior, not penalizing it.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution is in-tended to do two things. First, it re-states the commitment of this Houseto lift the Social Security earningslimit this year. We have already passeda measure in this House to lift theearnings limit on Social Security andwe expect our colleagues in the otherbody to take it up shortly.


Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Mrs. KENNELLY].

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I risebecause I support increasing the SocialSecurity earnings test. I believe thatwe should be encouraging work for allAmericans, especially those who have alifetime of experience. The current an-nual Social Security earnings limit of$11,000 penalizes too many who want towork after 65.

I know that many workings seniorswill be disappointed today that the in-crease in the Social Security earningstest passed earlier this year by theHouse is going to be dropped by thereconciliation bill. instead, we are vot-ing today on a resolution which merelystates that Congress intends to addressthis issue and I thank the gentlemanfor this resolution, but when we doraise the earnings test, let us makesure we do so without adversely im-pacting the Social Security trustfunds.

We do not want to reduce the sol-vency of the funds that guaranteeevery retiree a return on the moneythey paid into the system. Let us againfind a responsible, sensible way to in-crease the earnings test, so that all

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10869October 26, 1995Americans can get a fair return fortheir hard work.

And let us make sure, Mr. Speaker,the earnings test applies to all peopleon Social Security. We should not en-courage some over 65 to work and thendiscriminate against others, and thisyear, when we did pass this earnings-test increase, we discriminated againstan individual over 65 who was blind.This is not fair. We should raise thelimit for all people over 65 so they geta return on their hard work, and Ithank the gentleman for this resolu-tion.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. ARCHER], the chairman of theCommittee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding this time tome. This issue is something that hasbeen one of my top priorities since Icame to the Congress over two decadesago, raising the unfair earnings limiton seniors who want to work and con-tinue to contribute to themselves andto their country once they have passedthe retirement age of 65. It is nothingmore than a tax on working, and itsends the wrong message to Americanseniors.

Last fall we promised seniors that wewould pass legislation to raise theearnings limitation, and on April 5 wedid, raising it to $30,000 by the year 2000as part of our tax bill under the Con-tract With America. Then, as with alllegislation, it was the Senate’s turn toact on the provision. Unfortunately,the Senate did not. And, as we know alltoo well, without the cooperation ofthe Senate, no legislation is possible,no matter how strongly the House mayfeel about it.

Now the House will act today on itshistoric budget reconciliation bill. Be-cause an arcane Budget Act rule wouldput the entire budget reconciliationbill at risk in the Senate if it includedany Social Security provisions, at therequest of the Senate we did not in-clude the earnings limitation provisionin the House budget reconciliation bill.

b 1130

Nothing is more important to Ameri-cans of all ages than achieving a bal-anced budget, which the budget rec-onciliation bill today will do, but it isalso important to let working seniorsknow that we remain totally commit-ted to raising the unfair limit on earn-ings. That is why we introduced a con-current resolution yesterday. It makesit clear to working seniors that we inthe House remain committed to raisingthe earnings limit, separate from rec-onciliation, and that our colleagues inthe Senate now join us in that commit-ment.

The House has already passed a billto raise the earnings limit. It does notneed to pass another. Now that Senateleaders have promised that the Senatewill act, I am confident that the in-crease in the earnings limit that meansso much to working seniors will be-come a reality. I have worked hard to

see this happen for over two decades,joined in the Senate by Barry Gold-water as the leader sponsor until theyear he retired.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.HASTERT] is to be commended for hisefforts that have gone on for severalyears, as is the gentleman from Ken-tucky, JIM BUNNING, the chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Social Securityof the Committee on Ways and Means.

I appreciate the support of theSpeaker and the majority leader in thiseffort. This change is long overdue, be-cause it means so much to hard-work-ing seniors, and we will do everythingthat we can, and certainly I, as chair-man of the Committee on Ways andMeans, to see that it comes to pass.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Massa-chusetts [Mr. NEAL].

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr.Speaker, the resolution we are consid-ering today expresses the sense of Con-gress that the Social Security earningslimit should be increased. The timingof this concurrent resolution is very in-teresting, and very telling of what isreally happening here today. Did theRepublicans not promise senior citi-zens across Ameica that this year, thisyear, they would increase the SocialSecurity earnings limit from the cur-rent $11,200 to an eventual $30,000 peryear in the year 2000? Was not increas-ing the Social Security earnings limitpart of the original reconciliationpackage? Why now is it being pulled atthis moment?

The answer as to why this provisionhas been pulled from the bill we areconsidering today is quite simple: TheRepublicans have made a promise thatthey cannot and will not keep. Theyare finding a difficulty associated withsaying on one hand they can quicklyand easily balance the budget whilesaying on the other they can deliver onthe many promises that they havemade. Today the veneer is peeled off.We are witnessing exactly what is real-ly happening.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to re-mind the gentleman from Massachu-setts [Mr. NEAL], that the President ofthe United States said that he wouldlift the earnings test in 1992, and wehave not seen that happen. We aredoing it today, and we will make surethat it is done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromKentucky [Mr. BUNNING] who has beena leader on this issue for the last 8years.

(Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr.Speaker, I rise in support of HouseConcurrent Resolution 109.

Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, it’s impor-tant to talk about promises made—and prom-ises kept—to senior Americans who want tokeep working and contributing past age 65.

A year ago in September, House Repub-licans promised working seniors that we would

try to pass legislation to raise the limit onearnings that is so unfair, especially to middleand lower income seniors who work out ofeconomic necessity.

And on April 5, we kept our promise toworking seniors by passing a tax bill thatraised the earnings limit to $30,000 by theyear 2000—almost triple what it is now.

And then we sent our bill over to the Senateso our colleagues there could pass it as well.But months went by, and unfortunately theSenate took no action.

Now, the tax bill has been wrapped up inthe budget reconciliation bill we are consider-ing today. But, unfortunately there is an ar-cane budget rule which would put the entirebudget reconciliation bill at risk if it includesany Social Security provisions.

The arcane Senate rule put us in a toughposition. The budget reconciliation bill willmake it possible to achieve a balanced budgetfor the first time since 1969, and put an endto mortgaging our grandchildren’s future. Andas I said yesterday, as the grandfather of 28,nothing is more important than that.

As a result, it has been determined that wemust drop the earnings limit provision fromreconciliation rather than risk losing it all.

Yesterday, we introduced House ConcurrentResolution 109—the resolution we are consid-ering—to make it clear that, even though wewere forced to drop the earning limit increasefrom reconciliation, we have not given up onour commitment to passing it—and passing itthis year.

We are still committed to making sure thatthe earnings limit is increased.

The House has already passed the earningslimit increase—and this resolution simply saysthat we are committed to making sure that theSenate follows through. That is what this reso-lution is all about.

It’s a renewal of the promise we made lastyear. We have not given up—and I, for one,do not intend to give up until we get the SocialSecurity earnings limit increased. I urge mycolleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. GOSS].

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank myfriend and compatriot, and I know Ishould say champion, the gentlemanfrom Illinois [Mr. HASTERT] for all thework he has done, because the SocialSecurity earnings test limitation pe-nalizes seniors who want and need towork.

In the Contract With America wepledged and voted to fix this inequityby raising the earnings threshold to amore reasonable level, and we aregoing to do it. Ultimately I believe weshould repeal the limit altogether, be-cause I think penalizing work is un-American and so do most Americans,but we have more work to do to reachthat goal. This fix provides much-need-ed relief in the meantime. This resolu-tion locks in our commitment to get-ting an increase in the earnings testlimit signed into law this year. It alsolocks in the other body, and we have a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10870 October 26, 1995commitment from the majority leaderto make that happen.

By passing this resolution, we jumpthe hurdle of a highly technical par-liamentary problem pertaining to therules of the other body when it comesto reconciliation, and we get the earn-ings test limits fix back on the fasttrack. This is good news for America’sseniors. I cannot understand why ourcolleagues on the other side of the aislecannot figure that out.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. LEVIN].

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will votefor this resolution, but I think weshould understand what is really hap-pening here. The Republicans, I thinkthis resolution shows by its timing, aresquirming on the hook, on the hook ofrising anger against their entire budgetresolution. It is going to hurt kids,millions and millions of kids. It is hardfor them to speak. It is going to hurtworking families of this country, butmany of them are too busy workingand do not have the resources to lobbythis Congress. It is going to hurt sen-iors, and they are speaking more andmore. This is a resolution to try tocover the tracks of the majority here.

In the contract, they promised sen-iors that they would raise the earningslimit. How did they propose to do it?By raiding the Medicare trust fund, byrobbing Peter to pay Paul. How theyare saying ‘‘We will do it later.’’ Do wetrust them?

The majority leader on the Senateside said yesterday ‘‘I was there, fight-ing the fight, voting against Medicare,one out of twelve because we knew itwould not work in 1965.’’ It worked in1965 it worked in 1975, Medicare workedin 1985, it is working in 1995, and nowthe Republicans proposed to wreck it.This resolution is an effort to covertheir tracks. I do not think it is goingto fool anybody.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Virginia[Mr. GOODLATTE].

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supportof this concucurrent resolution. I thinkone of the most unfair tax situationswe have in this country is the earningstest on senior citizens between the agesof 62 and 70, a 50 percent tax on thoseearning just over $11,000 per year, inaddition to the taxes they have to payon the income that they earn, plus anyState taxes and so on. Someone can bein an 80 or 90 percent tax bracket be-cause of this earnings test. It is a tre-mendous disincentive for senior citi-zens between 62 and 70. Between 65 and70, it is a 33 percent additional tax, atrememodous disincentive to work, ata time when many people need to re-main in the work force, many peoplewant to remain in the work force, andthey ought to have the opportunity todo so.

I would say to my friends on theother side of the aisle that it is theirparty who originally enacted the rulesin the Senate that prevent us frombringing this up in this bill. We willcertainly stick by our commitment tothis. It is not a matter of our not want-ing to do it because of something wehave done, it is because of the rulesthat exist. I urge my colleagues to sup-port the resolution.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. GIBBONS], the ranking minoritymember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I amconstantly appalled by the lack ofknowledge of Members about par-liamentary procedure. This bill that weare talking about, first of all, I amgoing to vote for this resolution. I amsorry I have to tell the old people thatthey might as well kiss this good-bye,because it costs $12 billion to do that.The only place in this whole Congressthat you can find $12 billion is in thereconciliation bill, so after the rec-onciliation bill, there will not be $12billion laying around.

However, this bill, the House rec-onciliation bill, will never be consid-ered by the Senate. They will considertheir own reconciliation bill. Our billwill be over there laying on the desk.They will take up our bill, and the firstthing they will do is strike everythingafter the enacting clause. Not a wordone of the House reconciliation billwill ever be considered by the Senate,so what they are talking about here ismerely a ruse to allow the gentlemanfrom Georgia, NEWT GINGRICH, to have$12 billion to bargain with you folks tobuy your votes for that crazy reconcili-ation bill you have on the floor. That iswhat this is about. You all ought toknow your own parliamentary proce-dure. This bill will never be consideredthere. The basis and the whole thrustof your argument is fallacious. You arenot avoiding any Senate point of orderbecause the Senate will never considerthis bill. The Senate will consider theirown reconciliation bill. Shame on youfor lying to the American public onwhy you are doing this.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remindthe distinguished former chairman, thegentleman from Florida [Mr. GIBBONS],that he knows that all revenue billsstart in the House. We have passed theresolution for the earnings test to theSenate. They will pick that up nextweek. We passed this resolution today.They will pass it also today. It is ontrack.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromIllinois [Mr. WELLER].

(Mr. WELLER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I com-mend the leadership, the gentlemanfrom Illinois, DENNY HASTERT, on oneof the most popular aspects of the Con-

tract With America, raising the earn-ings limit for seniors.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Florida [Mr. SHAW].

(Mr. SHAW asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise instrong support of this concurrent reso-lution.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. FOWL-ER].

(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, the So-cial Security earnings test limit is anarchaic provision, created during theGreat Depression to make room foryoung people in the work force by forc-ing seniors to retire. It is impracticaland outdated and should have beendone away with a long time ago.

The individuals most negatively af-fected by the earnings limit are thosewho have the greatest need for theextra income, and it is not right for theGovernment to impose a punitive taxon their earnings. We have made acommitment to raise the earningslimit and this resolution is a step to-ward fulfilling that important promisethis year.

I urge my colleagues to supportHouse Concurrent Resolution 109.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from NewJersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do in-tend to vote for this resolution. I do re-spect the sincerity of the gentlemanfrom Illinois [Mr. HASTERT]. However,there is no question in my mind thatthis is a gimmick on the part of theRepublican leadership. Here we have abill between Medicare and Medicaidthat is going to increase taxes on sen-ior citizens by doubling part B pre-miums, has a means test, eliminates aguaranty for low-income seniors to paytheir part B premiums. This is a tax in-crease in this legislation, and thatmeans that more seniors are going tohave to go out and work. What happensif they go out and work? They aregoing to see the amount of Social Secu-rity that they earn be reduced.

It is not fair to suggest that somehowthis Republican leadership could notincorporate expanding this earningstest in the context of this bill. Theydid not because they are trying to save$1 billion, $1 billion that is going to betaken from working seniors. These areseniors that are going to have to go outand work, and a lot of them are work-ing right now. They are going to facemajor tax increases. The least thatcould have been done is to make it alittle easier for them to work. Moretaxes, and they do not even get thebenefit.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10871October 26, 1995gentleman from Missouri [Mr. EMER-SON].

(Mr. EMERSON asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I havebeen a long-time collaborator with thegentleman from Illinois in this legisla-tive undertaking. I associate myselfwith the gentleman’s remarks and hisefforts.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. CHABOT].

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as evenPresident Clinton will admit, at leastwhen he is a little tired, the FederalGovernment spends too much, and justas important, it taxes too much. Thetax burden on working senior citizensis especially heavy. It is absolutely in-tolerable that working seniors whoearn just over $11,000 are forced to giveup significant Social Security benefits.As part of our Contract With America,we committed to easing the tax burdenon senior citizens, and I am proud thattoday we will reaffirm that commit-ment through this resolution. I urge itssupport.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman fromPennsylvania [Mr. FOX].

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speak-er, I rise in strong support of the reso-lution. Currently seniors are limited tomaking $11,200 if they are under 70years old. Now they can, under this res-olution, make up to $30,000. Seniors areliving longer. We want them to livebetter. At the same time we are rollingback the unfair 1993 Social Securitytax increase, and we are saving Medi-care. I strongly support the resolution.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. KLINK].

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I think weneed to take a few moments to under-stand, this is nothing more than asense of Congress. It does not have theforce of law. What we are saying is thatsenior citizens should have the right toearn more money. That is fine. Thenlet us give them the right. Let us putthe force of law in this. That couldhave been done.

The Democrats do not control theCommittee on Rules, the majorityparty controls the Committee onRules. I think what we need to under-stand is that senior citizens may beforced to have to go to work at age 65,at age 67, at age 70, and at age 75, be-cause we have already heard the major-ity leader in the other body say ‘‘I wasthere, fighting the fight, voting againstMedicare, because we knew it wouldn’twork back in 1965.’’ It did work in 1965,it is working in 1995. If it needs to berepaired let us do it that in a biparti-san fashion. We have the Speaker ofthe House telling people ‘‘We did notget rid of Medicare in round one, it isnot politically feasible, but we aregoing to get rid of it later.’’

b 1145This is nothing more than a sham. It

is a sham, it is a smoke screen. If weare going to legitimately give seniorcitizens the right to earn more money,then let us do it and not just do a senseof Congress.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from North Carolina [Mr.COBLE].

(Mr. COBLE asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I haveworked with the gentleman from Illi-nois [Mr. HASTERT] for almost a decadein addressing this problem. I stand inhearty endorsement of what is beforeus today.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Illinois [Mr. FLANA-GAN].

(Mr. FLANAGAN asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me, and I rise in strong support ofthe resolution.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman from Geor-gia [Mr. BARR].

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Speaker, this has been one of themost hilarious debates I have wit-nessed in the over 10 months that Ihave been here. A Democratic Presi-dent lowers the earnings limit on So-cial Security recipients’ outside earn-ings, increases substantially the pen-alty for working Americans who hap-pen to have senior status, and we inthis Congress on the Republican sideare trying to raise that limit again sothat senior citizens can work withoutbeing penalized, and the Democrats aredancing around, coming up with themost ludicrous reasons why they can-not support this.

This is a good resolution. We need todo it. It is the Democrats in the Senatethat are preventing us from doing itnow in the reconciliation, my col-leagues on the other side of the aisleall know that, so let us pass this reso-lution and eventually pass this intolaw.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume,limited only by such time as I mayhave.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to makea couple of clarifications. Someone hassaid that under the Constitution, onlythe House of Representatives can initi-ate revenue bills. That is not correct.Under the Constitution, the House ofRepresentatives can only initiate reve-nue-raising bills.

The other clarification is the asser-tion that a promise was made to raisethe earnings limit, and this we dotoday. In fact, this we do not do today.This we promised to do some day,maybe next year.

Third, the President of the UnitedStates did not lower the earnings limitunder Social Security. No one has everlowered the earnings limit under So-cial Security. That would require anact of Congress to do so, but no Con-gress has done it. It has always beenuppered, it has never been lowered.

Finally, while I do support the reso-lution as being in the ambit of reality,there is one element of reality I thinkwe ought to understand. Often cited isthe senior citizen who works at theMcDonald’s or here and there and yonjust to make a little bit of money andthis person is being handicapped by theearnings limit. Demonstrably, this isnot true. McDonald’s pays on averageabout $5 an hour.

The present earnings limit comes outto about $5 an hour, which is not to saythat some people, about 800,000, willimprove their lot by this, but mostlypeople who are better off.

Finally, I do not think we shouldever repeal the earnings test. That hasalways been the condition of Social Se-curity and I do not think that peoplemaking $5 million a year ought to getthe current money out of Social Secu-rity.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

I would like to agree with the gen-tleman that people that make $5 mil-lion a year should not be sheltered bythe earnings test.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to thegentleman from Florida [Mr. FOLEY] toclose.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all,I would like to commend our deputywhip, Mr. HASTERT, for his effortstoday. I cannot believe the folderol.President Clinton in his campaign doc-ument wanted to repeal this. The Sen-ate, controlled by the majority, couldnot do it. Today, Willard Scott honoredfive Americans who had reached theage of 100 years old.

Let us reward these workers of Amer-ica, those between 65 and 69, and repealthis discriminatory, punitive, and un-fair penalty against those who want towork and help rebuild America.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BURTON of Indiana). Pursuant to HouseResolution 245, the previous question isordered.

The question is on the concurrentresolution.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 414, nays 5,not voting 13, as follows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10872 October 26, 1995[Roll No. 740]

YEAS—414

AbercrombieAckermanAllardAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBermanBevillBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BrownbackBryant (TN)Bryant (TX)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCardinCastleChabotChamblissChapmanChenowethChristensenChryslerClayClaytonClementClingerClyburnCobleCoburnColemanCollins (GA)Collins (IL)Collins (MI)CombestConditConyersCooleyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDannerDavisde la GarzaDealDeFazioDeLauroDeLayDellumsDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicks

DingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDornanDoyleDreierDuncanDunnDurbinEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEvansEverettEwingFarrFawellFazioFields (LA)Fields (TX)FilnerFlakeFlanaganFogliettaFoleyForbesFordFowlerFoxFrank (MA)Franks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFrostFunderburkFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGerenGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenGundersonGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHarmanHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHefnerHeinemanHergerHillearyHilliardHincheyHobsonHoekstraHokeHoldenHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson-LeeJacobsJefferson

Johnson (CT)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKingKingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaFalceLaHoodLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLongleyLoweyLucasLutherMaloneyMantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMartiniMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMenendezMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MingeMinkMoakleyMolinariMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMoranMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNadlerNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOwensOxley

PackardPalloneParkerPastorPaxonPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPickettPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelReedRegulaRichardsonRiggsRiversRobertsRoemerRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoseRothRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushSabo

SalmonSandersSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSchroederSchumerScottSeastrandSensenbrennerSerranoShadeggShawShaysShusterSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceSprattStarkStearnsStenholmStockmanStokesStuddsStumpStupakTalentTannerTateTauzin

Taylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomasThompsonThornberryThorntonThurmanTiahrtTorkildsenTorresTorricelliTraficantUptonVentoVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWardWatersWatts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilliamsWilsonWiseWolfWoolseyWydenWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer

NAYS—5

BeilensonJohnston

SkaggsVisclosky

Watt (NC)

NOT VOTING—13

CraneFattahGreenwoodHayesMeek

MfumeMiller (CA)SisiskyTownsTucker

VelazquezVolkmerWeldon (PA)

b 1211So the concurrent resolution was

agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.f

GENERAL LEAVEMr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Membersmay have 5 legislative days withinwhich to revise and extend their re-marks and include extraneous materialon the concurrent resolution justagreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BURTON of Indiana). Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromIllinois?

There was no objection.f

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRYMr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a

parliamentary inquiry.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-

tleman will state it.Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, this bill

contains an enormous tax increase. Ineed it explained to me why, when Imade this same parliamentary inquiryon the budget resolution back when thebudget resolution was before us, Speak-er GINGRICH told me I needed to learnthe rules.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-tleman will state his parliamentary in-quiry.

Mr. WARD. My inquiry is, I havestudied the rules and rule XXI appliesto bills. This is a bill, and it is a tax in-crease. Why does rule XXI not apply tothis bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. TheChair will state that the House, byadopting House Resolution 245, haswaived that requirement of the rule.Therefore, the Chair’s response at thispoint would be purely hypothetical,and the Chair cannot respond furtherat this point.

Mr. WARD. But the House resolutionto which you refer is the rule that theRepublican Committee on Rules hasbrought forth for this bill. So as I un-derstand it, what you are saying is thatSpeaker GINGRICH says that you canchange the rules on rule XXI when itsuits your purposes, when you want toraise taxes?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That isa statement by the gentleman and nota parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WARD. I thank the Speaker.

f

SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGETRECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 245 and ruleXXIII, the Chair declares the House inthe Committee of the Whole House onthe State of the Union for the furtherconsideration of the bill, H.R. 2491.

b 1212

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved it-self into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for thefurther consideration of the bill (H.R.2491) to provide for reconciliation pur-suant to section 105 of the concurrentresolution on the budget for fiscal year1996, with Mr. BOEHNER in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-

tee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,October 25, 1995, all time for general de-bate pursuant to the order of the Houseof Tuesday, October 24, 1995, and ex-pired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 245,there will be an additional 3 hours offurther general debate.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KA-SICH] and the gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. SABO] each will be recog-nized for 1 hour and 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Ohio [Mr. KASICH].

b 1215

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Well, we start the second day’s worthof discussion and debate in regard toour plan to provide Americans with taxrelief and also to balance the budgetusing real numbers over 7 years.

I just heard today that apparently apoll just came out within the last 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10873October 26, 1995hours where the American people ap-parently registered their doubt as towhether we in fact can balance thebudget. Frankly, if I was not in thisChamber or in this Congress and I wasout in America watching the operationof this place, I would have my doubtsfor this reason: For about 25 or 30 yearswe have been promising the people abalanced budget. I think every can-didate who has run for President haspromised a balanced budget. PresidentClinton said he would propose and exe-cute a balanced budget within the first4 years.

The President before him indicatedwe would have a balanced budget. Wehave been hearing this over and overand over again. But frankly, folks, weare going to have a balanced budget fortwo fundamental reasons. The No. 1reason why we are going to have a bal-anced budget and we are going to havethe discipline to execute and maintaina balanced budget over the next 7 yearshas to do with the American people.

Frankly, we hear a lot about polls,but I want to tell you about the pollthat I follow. That poll is not just thereaction that I get in my own district,but it is the reaction among the Mem-bers when they come back from beingin their districts. We heard when wecame back, after the last recess, thatAmericans were going south on thisplan, that the Republicans were start-ing to shake. Well, frankly, I have notseen it.

In fact, I think we have a rededicatedsense of purpose to get this job done.The reason why it is working is thatthis House of Representatives is truly areflection of the attitudes, the moodsand the opinion of the American peo-ple.

Frankly, we are usually behind wherethe American people are. I believe theAmerican people for a number of yearshave said it is time to give us some ofour power, money and influence back.Finally we are getting the message,which is why, when Members go home,they are being positively reinforcedand they are all hearing one simplemessage from their constituents. Justput the country first, put politics sec-ond. Balance the budget and save thiscountry for the next generation.

Now, let me just suggest to my col-leagues that I, again, have to keepgoing back to the reasonableness ofthis plan. When we look at what wehave done over the period of the last 7years, we have spent a cumulativetotal of $9.5 trillion. My colleagues aregoing to hear this from me two orthree times today, $9.5 trillion. If youstarted a business when Christ was onearth, if you lost $1 million a day 7days a week, you would have to lose $1million a day 7 days a week for thenext 700 years to get to one trillion. Wespent 9.5 trillion over the last 7 years,and under our plan to balance thebudget we are going to spend 12.1 tril-lion.

I mean, the revolution that we arehearing about, my colleagues, does not

mean we spend less money over thenext 7 years but almost $3 trillionmore. Do Members know what the fightis about in this Chamber? Do my col-leagues know what the fight is allabout in this whole capital, Washing-ton, DC, area? Whether we can go from9.5 trillion to 12.1 trillion or whetherwe should increase that to 13.3 trillion.

The question we have to ask theAmerican people is, can we save $1 tril-lion for the next generation? Nothingis more tragic than to go to the set-tling of an estate and have the childrensit in the room and have it told tothem by the lawyers that your motherand father put you in debt. We wouldconsider that to be not a good thing todo, a bad thing to do, to tell your chil-dren that they have big bills. I meanall the creditors come into the roomand you start paying it out. There goesmom and dad’s house. There go theirsavings because they ran up all thesebills.

The same is true with the Federalbudget. We do not have a right to tellthe next generation that we cannotstop ourselves from spending thatextra trillion, because if we can just re-sponsibly, rationally, using commonsense, hold our spending increases to $3trillion over the next 7 years, we canensure a strong economic future.

Now, look, folks, I do not believe allthese studies. I believe some of them,but let us forget the think tanks. Letus talk about the guy who sits downhere at the Federal Reserve who de-cides what interest rates are going tobe, and that is what drives this econ-omy. He says, if for once this Congresscan make the hard choice, the hardchoice, folks, to spend $3 trillion ratherthan 4, if we can make the hard choice,we rescue the country. I mean that isreally what it is all about.

When we look at the specific pro-grams like welfare, welfare goes up byalmost 400 billion. When you combineall the programs, it is interesting tonote that in many States in this coun-try, welfare recipients are gettingabout equal to $8 an hour. I mean thatis not being skimpy. That is being pret-ty darn generous.

Medicaid, Medicaid is going to growup to 443 to $773 billion. We added an-other $12 billion. Why? We want to do alittle better. The debate is not whetherit should go up, it is how much shouldit go up and then of course Medicare. Iwill tell Members on Medicare that,any way you want to cut it or slice it,our Medicare recipients will have farmore, they ought to have far more. Thespending is going to go from 926 to 1.6trillion. The average senior citizen isgoing to go from 4,700 bucks to 6,800bucks in spending over the next 7years.

My colleagues, we can in fact reinthis spending in, but it does not in-volve a nose dive. It involves a moregentle climb, rational thinking, appli-cation of common sense. If we do it,we, in fact, can save the next genera-tion.

Tax cuts? Well, below $75,000, 74 per-cent of the benefits go. But I do noteven want to get into this business ofdividing rich and poor. We do need rec-onciliation in this country from awhole host of divisive claims. Let mejust suggest that in 1993 the Presidentraised taxes by $250 billion over 5years. What is this all about? It is real-ly all about the size and the scope ofthe Federal Government.

We do not think that we need tosolve our problem by raising taxes. Wedid not think we needed to solve ourproblems in 1993 by raising taxes. Whatwe are about is taking that money thatwas taken from the American people’spockets in 1993. We took money fromtheir pockets. Republicans did notwant to do it. We said we can do itwithout a tax increase. Now we aretaking that money and we are puttingit back into the pockets of Americans.In order to do that, Federal spending isstill going to go up almost $3 trillion.

So, my colleagues, we have got thecommon sense plan. This plan is goingto pass this House today. I will com-pliment one group of Democrats willcompliment one group of Democratscoming forward with a balanced budgetplan. I understand, although I have notread the editorial, that the New YorkTimes and the Washington Post haveboth complimented them. That is a seachange, folks. We are the ones thatsaid we could do it in 7 years. Nowsome of the major newspapers in thiscountry are saying, well, we do not likethe Republican plan but we can do it in7 years. That is an incredible seachange in America.

When all is said and done, guesswhat? we are going to get there. We aregoing to have a balanced budget in 7years. We are going to have tax relieffor Americans. We are going to savethe future, and we are going to restorethe country for 100 additional years. Atthe end of the day, we will do it on abipartisan basis. But today we have todo our job. Our job is about puttingAmerica first, putting the politics ofparochialism second and just lookingout for the next generation.

That little vision, we are going tolook over all the swamp and all themuck and all the nasty rhetoric andthe shrill rhetoric that exists on bothsides. We are going to look beyondthat, and we are going to look to thenext generation. We are going to getthis done for our precious Nation.

Support the reconciliation bill.Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance

of my time.Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to thegentleman from Tennessee [Mr. CLEM-ENT].

(Mr. CLEMENT asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to the GOP plan.

Mr. Chairman, much of the debate I haveheard today does not concern whether weshould balance the budget. Of course we

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10874 October 26, 1995should. The debate I have heard today doesnot concern when we should balance thebudget. Most of my colleagues will agree thatbalancing the budget by the year 2002 is areasonable goal.

The center of the debate today is how wewill balance the budget. The Republicans pro-pose to balance the budget with steep cuts ineducation, health, farm, and seniors programs.They also propose outrageously huge tax cutsup front which must be paid for with evendeeper spending cuts.

Mr. Chairman, I must object to this bill, aswell as to the legislative process, which hasbeen highly unusual and chaotic. Medicarecuts were voted on separately, while the Med-icaid cuts are rolled into the reconciliation billwith no separate vote. Many committees havefailed to report their recommendations ascalled for in the budget resolution, and largeparts of the bill have been drafted behindclosed doors and are being added to the billat the last minute without any scrutiny or de-bate.

I have here what I believe represents the billand the process. This is a bucket of zoo doo.That’s right—zoo doo. It’s like a zoo aroundhere and all are producing is doo. Elephantdoo. This is what this bill is—elephant zoodoo. It stinks.

This legislation will have a financial impacton all Americans and there are winners andlosers. The wealthiest Americans receive a taxcut, while the working poor receive a tax in-crease. Fifty-two percent of the tax cuts go to5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greaterthan $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent ofthe tax cuts could go to 40 percent of the fam-ilies earning $20,000 or less. I think we haveour priorities out of wack.

I support providing a $500 tax cut to familieswith children, but we can’t afford to give thiscut to families earning up to $200,000. Thisthreshold needs to be lowered to $90,000.

This bill is too generous with tax cuts, whichleads to the deep spending cuts in other pro-grams. While middle-income families wouldbenefit from the proposed tax cuts, they willsuffer, for example, from the deep spendingcuts in the student loan program. The cutsproposed in this bill would raise the cost of theaverage undergraduate student loan by almost$2,500 over 4 years.

To pay for these tax cuts, the Republicanbudget plan proposes to eliminate the earnedincome tax credit—a program supported byPresident Reagan—for 5 million working fami-lies. Nine million working families would seetheir tax credit reduced on this plan.

The GOP plan includes a provision to allowcorporations to raid pension plans for millionsof workers. The retirement savings of workingfamilies could be jeopardized if the economysours of the company makes bad investmentdecisions. I can’t understand why my col-leagues would want to do this.

I also have concerns with the Medicare andMedicaid reforms included in the bill. Let mebe clear: I wholeheartedly support efforts tomake adjustments to the Medicare and Medic-aid programs. However, I stand strongly op-posed to raiding the pockets of low-incomeseniors, disabled recipients, and health careproviders in order to pay for Republican cor-porate loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy.Not only does this bill make severe reductionsin Medicare’s growth, it also overturns signifi-cant consumer standards designed to protectseniors from fraud and abuse. It is clear to me

what lies behind this Medicare bill: The specialinterests, not the people’s interests.

Finally, I oppose the Republican budget rec-onciliation bill because it eliminates the Medic-aid Program, handing over these funds to theStates as a block grant with little or no stand-ards to protect the vulnerable citizens this pro-gram insures. While I am concerned about theNation’s Medicaid recipients, I am especiallyopposed to the Medicaid legislation because itwill devastate Tennessee’s 1115 waiverTennCare Program with a $4.5 billion cut over7 years. Tennessee is the Nation’s leader inexperimenting with managed care for Medicaidrecipients, and now we are being punished forour success. Though some may vote today todestroy TennCare because of their party loy-alty, I will stand strong against this bill’s de-structive provisions.

In closing, this misdirected legislation wouldactually make economic life more difficult for avast majority of Americans because of thesteep cuts needed to pay for the tax give-away. I must object to this legislation andhope that a reasonable compromise can beworked out before the bill is sent to the Presi-dent.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-self such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, before I speak to thesubstance, let me congratulate myfriend from Ohio on his job of chairingthe Committee on the Budget andworking with the Republican leader-ship. I was one at the beginning whothought he would do what he said. Hehas put a package together that I ex-pect will pass the House today thatdoes reflect the values and priorities ofthe majority. I strongly disagree withthose values and priorities, but he hasdone it with grace. He has done it withskill. I know it is not easy to put apackage together. We will talk aboutthe substance of that package today,but his job that is his responsibilitywithin his caucus, we should not givehim praise. He has done it too well.They should give him significant praisebecause he has accomplished the goalsof his caucus.

We disagree with that, and in timewe will move on.

Mr. Chairman, what the House is un-dertaking today is not simply a debateabout balancing the Federal budget.This is a debate much more profound.It is about two very different visionsfor America’s future and what those vi-sions mean for America’s families,workers, and the most vulnerableamong us.

The Republican vision is clear. Yes-terday, on the same day we began de-bate on this massive budget bill, theRepublican leaders in both the Houseand Senate voiced pride in their desireto dismantle the Medicare Program.

The Speaker of the House sees theMedicare Program only in terms of pol-itics. He says that Republicans couldnot eliminate Medicare right now be-cause it is not politically smart. But hethen hastens to add that he would liketo see Medicare eventually wither onthe vine.

This is not a vision to renew Amer-ica. And it is one that we should all re-ject.

On the same day, the leading Repub-lican Presidential candidate declaredthat he was one of only 12 to voteagainst the creation of the MedicareProgram 30 years ago. With pride hesaid he was ‘‘fighting the fight, votingagainst Medicare.’’

And so we now move to the budgetpackage to be voted on in the Housetoday. The choices are clear. My Re-publican colleagues will put forward avision that rewards the wealthiest andmost powerful interests in our societyat the expense of the most vulnerableAmericans.

They will raise taxes on low-incomeworking families while lavishing mas-sive tax breaks on the affluent. Theywill make it difficult, if not impossible,for millions of citizens to obtain ade-quate health care.

They will cut funding for nutrition,education, transportation and sci-entific research even though we havemany years of evidence that these in-vestments enhance our society and oureconomic future.

They will ask people to move fromwelfare to work at the same time theyare eliminating work incentives andreducing work opportunities, and childcare benefits.

And, at a time investment in edu-cation is becoming increasingly impor-tant to the health of our economy,they will cut job training and increasecollege costs for millions of Americansseeking to better themselves.

One of the most troubling aspects ofthe Republican vision is that it will es-calate the 20-year trend that haspushed income inequality in this coun-try to its highest level ever—all so thatwealthy Americans can enjoy large taxbreaks they don’t need.

In short, throughout this budgetprocess, Republicans have engaged in aone-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will ulti-mately close the doors of opportunitythat lead to a prosperous Nation and ahigher standard of living for everyone.

So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my col-leagues to reject a vision of Americathat seeks to reward those who havealready prospered in our economywhile imposing burdens on those whohave not.

b 1230

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the very distinguished gen-tleman from the State of Iowa [Mr.GANSKE].

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, thereare three reasons why I am going tovote for this reconciliation bill: theirnames are Ingrid, Bridget, and Karl,my children.

There is so much in a bill like thisthat it is easy to lose sight of the for-est for the trees. Is this legislation ex-actly the way that I would have writ-ten it? Of course, not. This bill is theproduct of the push and shove, the bat-tle of competing interests, the art of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10875October 26, 1995compromise that is characteristic ofdemocracy.

As you vote for this historic meas-ure, remember Edmund Burke’s praiseof political courage two centuries ago:

You well know what snares are spreadabout your path . . . but you have put tohazard your ease, your security, your inter-est, your power, even your popularity . . .you will remember that public censure is anecessary ingredient in the composition oftrue glory: you will remember . . . that cal-umny and abuse are essential parts of tri-umph . . . you may live long, you may domuch. But here is the summit. You maynever exceed what you do this day.

But to portray this bill as unworthybecause it has gone through the demo-cratic political process that all ourlaws go through would be unfair. I, likeall 435 Members of this House, have tojudge this important piece of legisla-tion on its overall thrust. It does re-form welfare, it does preserve Medi-care, it does cut taxes, and most impor-tant, it does balance the budget.

I will take courage for you, my col-leagues, to vote for this bill exactly be-cause it is so big and not perfect as youwould will it. But I ask you to do it foryour children as I am doing it for mine.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-self 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would only say thatthe children of Members of Congressprobably will do fine, but the 20,000families in the district of the gen-tleman from Iowa [Mr. GANSKE] whoget the EITC, the earned income taxcredit, will do much worse.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentlewoman from New York [Ms.SLAUGHTER].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong opposition to the Repub-lican budget reconciliation package. Ihave listened to the debate on the floorand in the Rules Committee, and can’thelp but remember 1981, 1983, and moreimportant, 1993. In the early 1980’s wesaw two tax bills that were sold on thebasis that massive tax cuts for the verywealthy would spur the economy. Inthe late 1970’s the top marginal taxrate was close to 70 percent, and by theend of the 1980’s it had been cut to al-most 30 percent; did this spur economicgrowth and end deficit spending? Well,we started the decade with a $1 trilliondebt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addi-tion, we headed into the 1990’s with aneconomy in deep recession.

In 1993, in response to the growingdeficit and deepening economic rescis-sion, we came to the floor to bring abudget reconciliation package to con-trol spending and return some progres-sive policies to our Tax Code. A littleover 2 years ago we heard the cries ofeconomic desperation. Our package wascalled smoke and mirrors and I quote,‘‘it’s our bet that this is a job killer.’’The current Speaker predicted, and Iquote, ‘‘I believe that this will lead toa recession next year. This is the Dem-ocrat machines’ recession, and eachone of them will be held personally ac-countable.’’ The current majority lead-er predicted, and I quote, ‘‘the impact

on job creation is going to be devastat-ing.’’ Well, we passed the package with-out one Republican vote. Now let’s dis-cuss the results and the ability of theRepublican leadership to predict eco-nomic outcomes.

The deficit came down for 3 consecu-tive years. Our deficit is now the low-est as a percentage of national incomeof any major industrial country in theworld. After one of the slowest 4-yearperiods of job growth since the GreatDepression, the economy is now enjoy-ing a solid growth, with strong privatesector job creation and low inflation.The economy has created well over 3million private sector jobs. The Repub-licans were wrong then, and they arewrong now.

Today, we will be asked to cast one vote ona package that will dramatically change ourGovernment. With one vote, we will dismantlethe Department of Commerce; an agency en-trusted with two critically important constitu-tional functions; that of the census and the fil-ing and protection of patents. We will disman-tle an agency that every day impacts millionsof Americans. All done without the benefit ofany comprehensive committee action. We willforever change health care for millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens.We will end Federal, uniform nursing homestandards implemented less than 10 yearsago; we will force more working families intopoverty and end any hope of a higher edu-cation for thousands of our children. We willforever end Medicare as we know it. It doesnot surprise me that the Republicans want toend Medicare, as the leader of the RepublicanParty in the other body has stated, ‘‘I wasthere fighting the fight, working against Medi-care—because we knew it wouldn’t work in1965.’’ We will close many rural hosptials; cutWIC, Headstart, and significantly reduce ourinvestment in research and development. Allin the hope of economic growth and tax cutsfor the very affluent. Once again, our Repub-lican colleagues are asking Members of thisbody to take a leap of faith on failed economicand budget policies based on failed and mis-guided predictions.

I am hopeful that many of these radicalchanges will be dropped in conference. It isthe only hope we have. I ask all of my col-leagues to oppose this package.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. SMITH], amember of the Committee on the Budg-et, and an expert on immigration inAmerica.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman,in the last election, the American peo-ple told us to balance the budget, cutthe taxes, and end the gimmicks.

They wanted an end to Alice inBudgetland: to the rising tide of redink that destroys jobs, makes housingand education more expensive, and en-courages our addiction to big govern-ment.

They wanted an end to Alice inBudgetland: to the constant tax in-creases that take more and moremoney and decisions away from theAmerican people.

They wanted an end to the Alice inBudgetland rosy scenarios, bogusgrowth numbers, and magic asterisks,

the ponzi scheme by which Congresskept spending more of the people’smoney.

Today we keep our word. We have aplan to balance the budget. Our bal-anced budget plan will mean 1.2 millionadditional jobs by 2002. Our balancedbudget will reduce interest rates, mak-ing new homes, college education andstart-up businesses more plentiful andaffordable.

Our plan also increases the power anddecision-making of families. It’s notjust important to balance the budget.It matters how we balance the budget.The family and small business tax re-lief provisions contained in our planare essential to returning power andmoney back home.

Without tax relief, we won’t returndecisions where they belong—to thepeople who do the work, pay the taxes,raise the children. Without tax relief,we aren’t putting people first.

Last week in Houston President Clin-ton stated, ‘‘I think I raised your taxestoo much.’’ We agree that the Presi-dent was wrong, and that’s why Repub-licans unanimously opposed the largesttax increase in history. That’s why ourplan is the only plan that returns someof the money that President Clintontook in 1993.

It’s the family’s money to keep. It’snot Washington’s money to spend. Andonly our balanced budget honors hard-working Americans by letting themkeep more of what they earn and byspending their money with great care.

I urge my colleagues to support thisbalanced budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from my na-tive State of North Dakota [Mr.POMEROY].

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Minnesota[Mr. SABO] for yielding this time to me.

The budget before us is truly historicin its dimensions, and perhaps that isthe only thing we will all agree aboutin the course of this debate today. As Isee it, the debate between us is notabout whether we ought to balance thebudget. I think there is broad agree-ment we ought to move towards thatgoal. The debate is how we do it, andhere is where the conflicting prioritiesof the parties become very clear.

This budget plan is built on a fun-damentally flawed premise, that wecan balance the budget while financinga tax cut primarily benefiting the mostprivileged among us. This makes asmuch sense as a family resolving to gettheir household’s finances in order justas soon as they spend the weekend inParis once more on that oldMasterCard.

The consequences of the Republicantax plan are enormous. The wealthiestpeople in this country get a windfallwhile working and middle-incomeAmericans lose ground. The tax cut re-flects that the driving priority in thisbudget is to assist the wealthy in be-coming even wealthier, and to this end,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10876 October 26, 1995they have sacrificed health programsfor seniors, nutrition programs forkids, the safety net for family farmers,pension security for millions and mil-lions of Americans. In order to accom-modate the agenda of the privilegedthis budget makes devastating trade-offs that pull support from those whoneed it and opportunity and hope frommillions and millions of middle-classAmericans.

Make no mistake about it. The bot-tom line on this budget is more wealthfor the richest, less help for the need-iest, and reduced hope and opportunityfor middle-income families.

This bill is more than an historicbudget, it is an historic and tragic mis-take, on which if enacted will changethe character of our great country.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Mississippi [Mr.PARKER]

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, for pur-poses of clarification I would like toengage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.KASICH] in a colloquy.

First let me thank the gentleman forhis willingness to work with those ofus who have been concerned about thepublic auction of the facilities in thePower Marketing Administration. It ismy belief that the study provision con-tained in this legislation is superior toan outright sale. In fact, this non-bi-ased study will hopefully provide ourcommittee with the needed facts to de-termine whether or not a sale of thePMA’s will be in the best interest ofthe Government in the long run.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if thegentleman will yield, it better end upbeing better in the long run. I wouldsay to the gentleman I wanted to do itthis year, and he said we got to studyit for a while, make sure we do theright thing. I agree with the gen-tleman.

Mr. PARKER. However, Mr. Chair-man, I would like to seek clarificationto determine whether or not the eval-uation or study will look at the im-pact, if there is a sale of the PMA’s, onthe wholesale and retail electricityrates of the current customers in theaffected areas.

Mr. KASICH. I think that the gen-tleman makes a good point, and obvi-ously we want to make sure that, whenwe do this, we do it right and every-body understands what the impact willbe.

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Ohio for havingyielded to me. The clarification is ap-preciated.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the very distinguished gen-tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. NEUMANN],a brand-spanking new, fiery member ofthe Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday in strong support of this. Wehave spent a full generation. Now thelast time we balanced our budget I wasa sophomore in high school. My chil-dren are now out of high school and

heading on to college. I have got adaughter who is a junior in highschool. It has been a full generationsince we have balanced our budget. Itis time we get it done.

Congratulations to the Committee onthe Budget, to the gentleman fromOhio [Mr. KASICH], for bringing us a billthat is going to allow us to not onlykeep our promises, but, more impor-tantly, do what is right for the Amer-ican people.

As my colleagues know, not enoughhas been made about what happensafter we balance the budget. I justheard about the hopes and the dreamsof the future of the middle-class Amer-ica. When we balance the budget, whatthat means is the Federal Governmentstops borrowing hundreds of billions ofdollars out of the private sector, and,when the Federal Government stopsborrowing that money, that money isnow available for real people to borrow,and when real people have the oppor-tunity to borrow that money, thatmeans they can buy homes, and theycan buy cars, and they can get collegeloans to go to college, and when theyget those loans, the interest rate isgoing to be lower because there is moreaccess to the money. This is good newsfor the future of the middle class.

As a matter of fact, if somebody wereto go out and buy a house today, andthey were to borrow $50,000, and we hadbalanced the budget sooner so the in-terest rate was 2 points lower, theywould save over $1,000 a year in the in-terest on the payments in that $50,000loan.

b 1245

If they borrowed $100,000 to buy ahouse, they would save $2,000. Almost$200 a month remains in the pockets ofthe working people of this country be-cause we are about to balance thebudget. This is good news for thehopes, for the dreams, for the future ofthis country.

Also, it puts this Nation back ontrack, that the Nation will be pre-served for the next generation. Insteadof giving them a legacy of growingdebts, we can give our children thehopes and dreams of the future, like wereceived from our forefathers.

In the budget resolution we passedearlier this year, it sets some 7-yeartargets and it sets some 1-year targets.Again, I commend the Committee onthe Budget. This proposal that we havebefore us today not only hits the 7-yeartargets, it also hits the first-year tar-gets, and a lot of other political groupswould not have done that. I commendthe chairman of the committee, thegentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH], andthe committee for their tireless workat helping us keep our promises to theAmerican people, and strongly urgesupport of this bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Ms. DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, I risejust to let our colleague, the gen-

tleman from Wisconsin, know that inhis district 17,179 working families willhave their taxes increased by this Re-publican bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman from Cali-fornia [Ms. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD], adistinguished member of our commit-tee.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair-man, the Republican budget is morallywrong. It does nothing to improve na-tional living standards.

Except for the very wealthy, it hurtsthe majority of hard-working Ameri-cans. Three areas illustrate my point.

First, the Republican bill cuts taxesfor the rich, but raises taxes on thepoor. It cuts the earned income taxcredit which helps keep 14 million low-paid working families earning $9,500 to$25,000 dollars a year out of poverty.

The GOP tax plan will give familiesearning $350,000 dollars a year a $14,000tax cut. While the struggling, lowestpaid worker must lose an additional$300 to $324 annually. That is wrong.

Second, the Republicans cut childand prenatal nutrition programs prov-en to be good national investments.For every $1 spent on prenatal nutri-tion, the WIC Program saves the Amer-ican taxpayer $3.50 in special educationand Medicaid expenses. To cut suchprograms is wrong.

Finally, the Republican plan unbe-lievably repeals the Nursing HomeStandards Act of 1987. This act was en-acted as a direct response to congres-sional hearings which revealed wide-spread abuses in State and privatelyrun nursing homes. Abuses resultingfrom unsanitary conditions, malnutri-tion, overmedication, neglect, sexualand physical abuse.

Our current law has helped to elimi-nate these abuses and to improve thequality of life for nursing home sen-iors.

If these standards are eliminated, Re-publicans condemn our seniors to suf-fer the horrible abuses of the past.That is wrong.

Under the Republican budget rec-onciliation bill, the rich will be richer,but the living standard of our Nationwill be made much poorer.

The only good thing about the Re-publican budget is that it is so extremeand unfair that the President mustveto it.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from NewJersey [Mr. MARTINI], the courageousyoung freshman who is from the Stateof Bruce Springsteen.

Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Ohio. I firstwould like to compliment him and hiscommittee for the outstanding work hehas done on this budget this year.

Today we are debating and are aboutto consider a Budget ReconciliationAct. It struck me coming over herethat reconciliation, the very nature ofthe word itself, suggests a coming to-gether, a solving of differences, and a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10877October 26, 1995going forward. I believe that the Amer-ican people today know that the Fed-eral Government has had extreme prob-lems with its fiscal matters over theyears. I think the Americans also knowthat this majority of Congress has beenset to correct those wrongs, but I sus-pect that the Americans out there stilldo not know if this Congress has the re-solve to do that today. It is no wonder,in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, becauseover the last several weeks all theyhave heard are distortions and scares,scares intended to stop people in theirtracks from going forward.

It strikes me as sad that the partywhose former leader, Franklin DelanoRoosevelt, once gave us the phrase ‘‘Wehave nothing to fear but fear itself’’now offers us only fear itself and no so-lutions. Let us just look at the recordfor a moment, if we may.

On June 4, 1992, President Clintonpromised a balanced budget. He neverdelivered. He promised a tax cut formiddle-class families. He never deliv-ered. Worse than never delivering, heactually implemented the biggest taxincrease in the history of our Nation.Now he has even admitted he raisedour taxes too much. He failed to offer aplan to end welfare as we know it, andhe stayed on the sidelines as we savedMedicare from going bankrupt.

In contrast, this Congress is aboutkeeping promises. We understand theimportance of fulfilling our promisesto our elderly and our children, and wewill do just that. Today, for me, Mr.Chairman, it is indeed humbling totake part in such a historic vote infavor of a more fiscally sound Americaand a brighter America, and I urge allof my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. DOGGETT].

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 27,641working families in the district of thegentleman who just spoke will havetheir taxes increased by this Repub-lican tax increase bill they are approv-ing today.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to my good friend, the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. STENHOLM].

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Ijoin my ranking Member in emphasiz-ing that putting all substance aside,the logistics of bringing this bill to thefloor have been an abhorrence not onlyto the usual committee process but ofany democratic process.

I want to add a word or two todayabout the role which the Budget Com-mittee has, or rather could have had,in today’s reconciliation bill. Havingspent a great deal of my career lookingat budget process issues, and in fact,having enjoyed working on a number ofthose issues with Chairman KASICH,that is what I would like to examinenow. I was both surprised and dis-appointed that this reconciliation billtook a minimalist approach to processreform.

Needless to say, this bill is expansivein every other regard. No one singlebill has ever entailed such a com-prehensive overhaul of Federal Govern-ment policy. The other side likes tospeak of the Republican revolution andI would, in no way, dispute that this isa revolutionary document.

That is why I am disappointed thatprocess reforms which could bringmeaningful budget enforcement, great-er integrity in the process, and a senseof openness and honesty were left outof the revolution.

Two year’s ago when we were bat-tling over the 1993 budget reconcili-ation bill, I engaged in intense negotia-tions with my leadership to move uscloser to enforcement language whichwould guarantee the deficit reductionpromises being made. In particular, wewere trying to remove ‘‘uncontrol-lable’’ as an adjective for entitlementspending.

The agreement that we reached in1993 was far less than I wanted, espe-cially with regard to guaranteeing con-trol over the Medicare Program. But doyou know what? That agreementshowed a lot more enforcement musclethan appears any where in this budget.I received all sorts of Republican lec-turing for failing to bring my party tothe stronger entitlement control Iwanted and yet even that compromiselanguage is missing in this revolution.This bill allows ‘‘uncontrollable’’ tocontinue accurately describing entitle-ment spending.

What else could have been included?Well, the substitute which I am sup-porting today includes deficit reduc-tion guarantees enforced by sequestra-tion. It has 10 year scorekeeping tomake sure that things like grossly bal-looning tax cuts start showing up be-yond the curtains on current budgetwindows.

Our substitute has process reformslike line item veto and a deficit reduc-tion lock box, which the majority ofthis House has said it supports. It alsoadopts numerous provisions borrowedfrom previously bipartisan bills whichmany people standing on the other sideof the floor right now not only sup-ported but co-authored—things likebaseline reform, controlling emergencyspending, continuing resolution re-form.

Where are those provisions today?How did they get left out of the revolu-tion? For a party which has made amantra of ‘‘Promises Made—PromisesKept’’ why were not some of the prom-ise-keepers built into this bill?

I urge my colleagues to vote no onthe base bill and vote yes on the sub-stitute which actually has a chance ofmaintaining the many promises beingmade today.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gen-tlewoman from California.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding to me.

This is a defining time and a definingvote. Very few here have made every

vote in the last two Congresses toachieve significant and fair deficit re-duction—beginning with support of the1993 budget which has halved our defi-cit to the lowest level in a generationand decreased it for 3 years straight. Ihave made each of those tough deficitcutting votes.

And today I will continue to stand upfor fairness, for balance, for deficit re-duction, and for bipartisanship.

In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R.2491 as drafted because it funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit inthe short-term and hurting our mostvulnerable populations—seniors andchildren—with devastating Medicarecuts and the termination of Medicaidas a guaranteed safety net for nursinghome residents.

I strongly support the bipartisan coa-lition substitute which defers tax cutsuntil we have achieved a balancedbudget, treats cost-of-living increasesin a non-inflationary manner, and pre-serves Medicaid, including regulationsagainst nursing home abuse.

In my view, the Medicare cuts in thecoalition substitute are deeper thanwhat I would like to see, but this bipar-tisan effort sets a marker for furtherdiscussion. I have met with hundreds ofseniors in my district, and will standwith them as we work for the fairestcompromise within tough budgetaryconstraints.

Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with realpublic input, I believe its contentswould be different. Now with its ex-pected passage and its expected veto bythe President, the real debate muststart.

Every Federal program, every Fed-eral dollar should be on the table as wedebate—openly and in a bipartisanmanner—how to share sacrifice andhow to share benefits. Every program.Every person.

But the operative word is balance—abalanced budget, balanced sacrifice,balanced benefit, and an open and bal-anced process. Let’s begin anew.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Con-necticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, the first thing I wantto say is I would not vote for the plandescribed by the gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. SABO], and I do not thinkanybody on this side of the aisle would,but that is not our plan. That does notseem to matter to the gentleman fromMinnesota and others.

We have had a budget deficit that hasgone up and up and up, a debt that hasgone from $385 billion 25 years ago to$4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. Our col-leagues on that side of the aisle whohave been in power for 40 years havehad a chance to deal with that issue.We need to get our financial house inorder, and we need to balance our Fed-eral budget. We need to save our trustfunds, particularly Medicare, and weneed to transform our social and cor-porate welfare State into an oppor-tunity society.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10878 October 26, 1995The bottom line and the most dif-

ficult part is saving our trust funds. Weknow what the board of trustees of theFederal hospital insurance trust fundhave said. they have said that in basi-cally 7 years the Medicare part A trustfund literally goes bankrupt, but no-body on that side of the aisle evenwanted to address it until a few weeksago.

We are addressing that fund. We aremaking sure that $333 billion benefitsthe Medicare part A trust fund, and$137 billion benefits the Medicare partB trust fund. We have extended its in-solvency and its ultimate bankruptcyfrom the year 2002 to the year 2010.

What is so important about the year2010? That is when the baby boomersstart to get into this fund. At thatpoint, we have the baby boomers fromyear 2010 to the year 2030. By the year2030, baby boomers from the age 65 to85 will be in the fund. What does thatmean? We have workers right now,three and one-half workers are workingfor each individual in the trust fund.Right now three and one-third workerswork for every person in the Social Se-curity trust fund. By the year 2030, 35years from now, there will only be twoworkers.

We are talking about what has hap-pened over the last 40 years, and par-ticularly, the last 25. Our Congressesand, regretfully, our Presidents havemortgaged the farm, and now we aretrying to buy it back for our kids. thisis about kids. It is about saving thiscountry. I could not be more proud tobe part of this reconciliation act. Myonly regret is that the President hasnot joined in in this effort.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-self 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, looking at the num-bers as the gentleman referred to, I dis-covered he only has 11,000 families eli-gible for low-income tax credit, one ofthe lowest in the country. They aregoing to be hurt, but let me assure thegentleman from Connecticut, all therich constituents he has are not goingto be hurt. They are going to prosper.They are going to do well. His districtdoes not resemble America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.MEEK].

(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chair-man, I want to thank the gentlemanfrom Ohio [Mr. KASICH], the chairmanof the Committee on the Budget, andthe ranking member, the gentlemanfrom Minnesota [Mr. SABO]. I servedunder them this session on the Com-mittee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose thereconciliation bill we will considertoday.

Why are poor Americans being askedto shoulder most of the pain in bal-ancing the Federal budget and payingfor tax breaks for the wealthy? The an-swer is that they are a convenient tar-

get. Poor people can’t afford to hirelobbyists to protect their interests.

We all know that cutting the Federalbudget deficit is painful, but this de-bate isn’t about pain and suffering. Itis about fairness. Most of the cuts inthe reconciliation bill reported by theCommittee on the Budget fall on low-income Americans. The reported billcuts $221 billion from entitlements, and$192 billion of these—87 percent—are intwo Federal programs that help poorand low income Americans: Medicaidand student loans.

The Budget Committee also approved$53 billion in increased taxes, and $27billion—51 percent—are reductions inthe earned income tax credit for work-ing Americans and low-income housingcredits.

The chairman of the Committee onWays and Means recently justified thechanges in the earned income tax cred-it by arguing, and I quote, ‘‘Simplyput, the EITC is going to people withincomes that are too high.’’ Too high?Should a single hard-working personwith no children earning $8,200 a year,or $4 an hour, have her Federal incometax raised by $101 a year? Should work-ing people struggling to get by helppay for a tax cut that goes mainly tothe small minority—12 percent of allfamilies—that earn over $100,000 ayear? This bill is simply unfair.

What happened to the Republicanpledge in January that it would requirea three-fifths vote to raise incometaxes because the Republicans saidthey wanted to ‘‘help’’ working Ameri-cans? Today the Republicans arewaiving this requirement. People aregoing to bear the burden for these falsepromises.

The Republicans’ plan to cut Flor-ida’s Medicaid payments by 26 percentover the next 7 years will have a dev-astating effect on Miami. Jackson Me-morial Hospital accounts for 30 percentof all hospital admissions in Miami.This year Medicaid will supply $438million to Jackson Memorial, or about40 percent of its total revenues.

What will happen to health care forthe poor if Jackson Memorial runs outof Medicaid money in October underthe Republican scheme? Will they stopdelivering babies? Will they stop vac-cinating children in November and De-cember? Is this fair?

Last week the Republicans voted toincrease part B Medicare premiums.This week they are cutting Medicaid.What will happen to the elderly whenFlorida runs out of Medicaid moneyand can no longer pay for the Medicarepart B premiums of the elderly?

What will happen to the elderly whoare now in nursing homes when Floridaruns out of Medicaid money? Will theelderly be put out in the street?

The Republicans opposed my effortsto make the Medicaid formula fairer.Twice I tried to have the entire Housedecide whether to accept the Medicaidformula adopted by the Senate FinanceCommittee, which is fairer and helpsease the burden of these cuts on Stateslike Florida. But twice every Repub-

lican voted ‘‘no’’ even though myamendment would have helped a ma-jority of the Republican Members.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of thematter is under the House plan theearned income tax credit is going to goup by 40 percent. Forty percent maynot be enough for some that want todrive it up 60, 70, 80 percent. Forty per-cent is a generous increase.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HOKE].

Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe chairman of the Committee on theBudget and my fellow Buckeye foryielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I listen to this debateand I just cannot conceive of howAmericans watching it in their homescould be anything but confused, be-cause we bandy about the word ‘‘cut’’in such a disgraceful, shameless, andsuch a completely inaccurate way. Thefact is we are going to increase thespending on the earned income taxcredit from $22 billion in 1995 to $32 bil-lion in 2002. Overall, this budget goesfrom one trillion five hundred billionto one trillion eight hundred billion;Medicare goes up from $170 billion to$244 billion; education and studentloans goes up from $24 billion to $36 bil-lion. That is a 50 percent increase. Yetall we hear from the other side is cut,cut, cut.

b 1300

Where is the cut? It is that kind ofabusive language that makes it so im-possible for average Americans to deci-pher what the heck is going on and tomake the kind of judgments that theyneed to be able to make in order toevaluate their representatives. In fact,the only cut that I am aware of, theonly real cut in this budget has to dowith foreign aid, and that is a real cut.

What is the good side, what is the up-side of all of this? The upside of all ofthis in terms of balancing the budget,the biggest impact on American fami-lies will be with respect to what it doesto interest rates, and that is a profoundimpact. It is not just a fog of numbers,it is not just accounting, it reallymakes a difference in terms of whatthose dollars mean to the averageAmerican working family.

DRI/McGraw Hill has said that it is a2.7 percentage point difference as a re-sult of balancing the budget. On a$100,000 mortgage, on a $100,000 mort-gage, that amounts to about $225 permonth more in the hands of the peoplethat earn that money. That has a pro-found impact on a student loan. Thereis a tremendous difference, as well ason a car payment.

The good news is that balancing thebudget puts more money in the pocketsof the people that make it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from Texas,Mr. GENE GREEN.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, in response to my colleague

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10879October 26, 1995from Ohio [Mr. HOKE], the last speaker,does the gentleman know that in hisdistrict 22,659 working families willhave their taxes increased by this bill?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. DOGGETT].

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, our Republican budgetchief is exactly right. This is a debateabout promises, and how you feel aboutthe promises depends on where you aresitting on the economic ladder of thiscountry.

If you are way up there on top, at theapex of the American economy, sittingon a cushion sipping champagne, yougot your promise fulfilled by in Repub-lican Party bountifully, because thebetter off are going to get a little morebetter off today. If you are one of thegreat corporations of America thatback in the days of yesteryear neverpaid a dime of taxes on billions of dol-lars of profit, you also can smile. Youare better off today. You will pay zero,zip, not a dime under the repeal of theminimum tax credit.

Mr. Chairman, but what if you arenot way up there on top? What if youare down on the lower rungs, just try-ing to struggle and make ends meetand get your kids through school?Well, those people on the economic lad-der have a broken promise. If you areon Medicare, well, you get the new Re-publican sick tax. Yesterday, BOB DOLEwas boasting, he voted against Medi-care, and NEWT GINGRICH said, well, wewill just let it wither on the vine. TheRepublicans lever a hefty sick tax be-cause they want to help those who arewell. Very well. Well off.

If you make $30,000 or less, these Re-publicans are going to raise your taxes,plain and simple. To the many who aretrying to climb up that economic lad-der and share in the American dream,they stomp on their working fingers asthey try to climb up that ladder. Thatis why we call it Wreckonciliation, be-cause it wrecks working families thatare trying to make a go of it. It wrecksseniors who are going to have to paythat Republican sick tax.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. HOEKSTRA],a member of the Committee on theBudget.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the chairman for yielding methis time.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing that wewill wreck if we do not pass this rec-onciliation bill is the American family.Let us talk about exactly what is goingto happen to spending over the next 7years. If we do nothing, Federal spend-ing will rise by 37 percent. If we passreconciliation, which we will do lateron today, Federal spending, we arereally going to tighten our belts for thenext 7 years. We are only going toallow Federal spending to increase by27 percent.

I came out of the private sector, andI would have loved any budget that

over 7 years would have allowed me toincrease spending by 27 percent. We areasking the Federal Government to getspending under control and have agentle slope toward balancing thebudget.

Spending goes up in every category.Total spending goes up. Welfare re-form, welfare spending goes up. Medi-care spending goes up. Per beneficiaryon Medicare goes from $4,800 to $6,700.We are trying to manage health caregrowth to 5 percent per year. Medicaidspending goes up. Spending on studentloans. Student loan spending goes by 37percent over the next 7 years. Schoollunches. We heard that those weregone. Spending on school lunches goesup by 4.5 percent per year.

This is a reasonable budget; this is acommonsense reconciliation. Commonpeople, on the street every day wouldlove to have a budget at their housethat would go up by 3 percent per yearand be asked to manage to that. Thismakes sense. This is reform that wecan manage too.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. KLINK].

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to mydear friend, the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. HOEKSTRA], I just wonder if heknew that in his district 23,679 workingfamilies will have their taxes increaseby their Republican reconciliation.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Mary-land [Mr. HOYER].

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to the omnibus billthat I believe is a major step back-wards for our Nation. I am committedto ensure our Nation’s fiscal integrity.Our obligation to our future and ourchildren demands decisive and decid-edly different action to effect a dis-ciplined conduct in our fiscal business.But the Republican package is not theanswer. It is an attack on the middleclass and poor Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I supported the Bal-anced Budget Amendment. I voted forthe Stenholm budget, which wouldhave achieved a surplus by 2002, and Iwill support the Orton alternative thatalso puts us on a path to a balancedbudget by 2002. But I do not support taxcuts until we get our fiscal House inorder. Balance the budget first andthen consider tax reductions.

Half of the bill’s tax breaks go tothose who make more than $100,000 ayear, while the lowest 20 percent of in-come earners will see their taxes go up.That is not right. If the Republicanswere not so committed to tax breaksfor the wealthy, this legislation wouldnot include the draconian cuts that Ioppose so strongly.

One example of the bill’s attack onthe middle class is provisions on Fed-eral employees. While I am pleasedthat the parking provision has beendropped, what remains is still unfairand unwarranted.

In addition to the dramatic reduc-tions in the earned income tax creditwhich has been spoken of, this bill

makes very serious cuts in Medicareand Medicaid. Over $450 billion inhealth care cuts for seniors familiesand children.

Furthermore, the Republican propos-als for welfare reform are weak onwork and tough on kids; they aretougher on kids than they are on thedeadbeat dads who walk out on thosekids. The Orton substitute will effectreal welfare change and require thosewho can work to work regularly.

These are just a few examples ofwhat I believe our priorities must be.Not tax cuts in the face of deficits, butfiscally responsible policies that serveour Nation’s needs, promote the Amer-ican economy, and effect a balancedbudget by the year 2002. I urge defeat ofthe Gingrich-Kasich budget.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. CHRYSLER].

(Mr. CHRYLSER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand inthis House today in support of our planto balance the Federal budget over thenext 7 years. It is the most compas-sionate thing that we can do for thechildren of America. One of the bestways to help the children in America isto help their mom and dad, and letthem have the basic human dignity andpride that comes from bringing home apaycheck. We need less governmentand lower taxes; we need to let peoplekeep more of what they earn and save,and we need to let people make theirown decisions on how they spend theirmoney, not government.

As the head of the task force to dis-mantle the Commerce Department, Iknow we found a good place to start inrightsizing the Federal Government.Former Commerce Secretary RobertMosbacher put it best when he recentlycalled his old department, ‘‘Nothingmore than a hall closet where youthrow everything that you don’t knowwhat to do with.’’ In fact, 60 percent ofthe Department has nothing to do withcommerce.

In a recent Business Week poll, sen-ior business executives said to elimi-nate the Department of Commerce by atwo-to-one margin. Why? Because ifthe Commerce Department were trulythe voice of business, they would besupporting a cut in capital gains tax;they would be supporting tort reformand regulatory reform, and balancingthe Federal budget. In fact, the Depart-ment of Commerce is diametrically op-posed to all of them.

Our plan simply makes more sensethan current hodgepodge programshuddled at the agency that some nowcall the Department of MiscellaneousAffairs.

Mr. Chairman, our efforts to disman-tle the Department of Commerce will

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10880 October 26, 1995streamline and improve Federal effortson behalf of American businesses andsave billions of dollars, giving tax-payers and their children their money’sworth. Everyone in my district, in myState, and America are better off, and88 percent of them say, balance theFederal budget.

Last week, House Republicans unveiledtheir final plan to dismantle one of least defen-sible Departments in government: the Depart-ment of Commerce. As Majority Leader DickArmey noted, for the first time in history, theAmerican people will see a Cabinet chair car-ried out of the Cabinet Room at the WhiteHouse and placed in a museum with other ar-tifacts from American history.

Our plan to dismantle the Commerce De-partment is the first step in our mission todownsize a bloated Federal government thatis too big and spends too much money. It willbegin to put out-of-control government growthin reverse and will save taxpayers at least $6billion over the next 7 years, a significantdown payment on our plan to balance theFederal budget.

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the need tostreamline the Federal Government more thanthe Commerce Department. Accordingly to theDepartment’s own inspector general, thisagency is a loose collection of over 100 unre-lated programs. In fact, today’s Department isinvolved in everything from managing fishfarms to predicting the weather to promotingnew technology.

What Commerce officials describe as ‘‘syn-ergy’’ among Commerce’s wide-ranging func-tions, most reasonable people simply call con-fusion.

What most people believe is the real mis-sion of the Department of Commerce, promot-ing the interests of American businessthroughout the global marketplace, is actuallyonly a fragment of what the Department actu-ally does. Only 5 percent of Commerce’sbudget is devoted to trade promotion, a re-sponsibility the Department shares with nu-merous other Federal agencies.

While Commerce Secretary Ron Brown con-tinues his defense of his beleaguered Depart-ment, the business community remains nota-bly silent. A recent Business Week poll of sen-ior business executives illustrated their supportfor eliminating the Department of Commerceby a margin of two to one.

Secretary Brown insists the Department is‘‘the only effective Cabinet-level voice of U.S.business,’’ yet industry remains skeptical. Re-cently, the respected Journal of Commercequoted Willard Workman, a vice-president atthe U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying, ‘‘I’veonly received four phone calls from membercompanies asking that we lead the effort tosave the Department.’’ The U.S. Chamber ofCommerce represents over 200,000 busi-nesses throughout the nation.

A Wall Street Journal article earlier this yearabout Republican calls for the elimination ofthe Commerce Department was headlined‘‘Business Sheds Few Tears.’’ The article wenton to quote Clinton administration ally C. FredBergsten, director of the Institute for Inter-national Economics, as noting ‘‘I don’t thinkmuch would be lost’’ if the Department ofCommerce were eliminated.

Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Busi-ness Survival Committee, recently rejectedSecretary Brown’s assertion that the businesscommunity would face dire consequences if

the Department at the Commerce were dis-mantled: ‘‘Having the Commerce Departmentat the Cabinet table has accomplished little inthe past few years—in fact, taxes have risenand the regulatory burden has grown.’’

Despite this resounding vote of no-con-fidence from the business community, Sec-retary Brown tries to claim credit for encourag-ing billions of dollars in U.S. exports and forcreating hundreds of thousands of Americanjobs. Secretary Brown fails to understand thatit is the spirit of American enterprise and en-trepreneurship that drives the American econ-omy, not government bureaucrats in Washing-ton.

Steve Moore, director of fiscal policy studiesat the Cato Institute, wryly answers the Sec-retary’s exaggerated claims, ‘‘Right. And if wecould just find 10 more Ron Browns, theAmerican trade deficit and unemploymentwould magically vanish.’’

We are not, however, disputing the impor-tance of many of the trade functions currentlyperformed by the Commerce Department. Wemust aggressively pursue foreign markets andprovide in-roads for American business. But tohuddle these beneficial trade functions underthe same administrative umbrella as theWeather Service, the Census Bureau, and theEconomic Development Administration doesnot make sense. Our plan would change that.

That said, Mr. Brown’s argument that Com-merce has been a ‘‘proven business ally at theCabinet table’’ holds little weight with Ameri-ca’s business community and the Americantaxpayers who foot the bill.

Our plan provides a blueprint for what theFederal Government should be doing forAmerican business: aggressively promotingopportunities and opening avenues for freeand open trade for all industries.

Our plan will strengthen the important tradefunctions of the Federal Government. Cur-rently, over 19 federal offices or agencies playsome role in developing Federal trade policy.Our plan begins to consolidate this fragmentedsystem, avoiding the confusion and missedopportunities that this scattered system oftencreates.

We will consolidate the trade programs ofthe Commerce Department, including the U.S.Foreign and Commercial Service and the Im-port Administration, into the Office of the Unit-ed States Trade Representative, which al-ready takes the lead in trade policy.

Secretary Brown has claimed that eliminat-ing the Commerce Department will be tanta-mount to unilateral disarmament, gutting theability of the United States to compete in worldmarkets through aggressive export promotionand sensible trade policies. I don’t think theAmerican people buy that argument for aminute.

Mr. Brown’s argument assumes that it is agood thing for the U.S. to have trade functionshoused in an agency in which they are swal-lowed up. Do our trading partners think we areserious about trade when functions directly re-lated to trade account for just 5 percent of thebudget for the Department we call Com-merce? Mr. Brown implies that our trade policyand promotion efforts will only work if they arecarried out by lots and lots of people sitting ina very big building. I know the people of mydistrict sent me here to challenge that kind ofassumption.

The fact is, we can conduct a much moreeffective trade policy by restructuring anddownsizing the trade bureaucracy. The current

U.S. structure for trade policy—USTR as theleader, Commerce’s International Trade Ad-ministration as the poor cousin—is an anom-aly. It is wasteful, duplicative, and it reducesour effectiveness vis-a-vis our major tradingpartners, like Canada, Japan, France, and theUnited Kingdom, which have single, unifiedtrade agencies.

I am absolutely convinced that, by breakingCommerce’s trade functions out of a hide-bound bureaucracy, by streamlining thosefunctions, and by eliminating the senseless di-vision that exists between USTR and the Inter-national Trade Administration, U.S. businesswill end up with a much more effective advo-cate, and our trading partners will face a muchmore formidable presence across the negotiat-ing table. Our plan moves us toward that goal.We’re not disarming—we’re rethinking, retool-ing, consolidating and learning from the suc-cesses of our trading partners.

The Commerce dismantling plan will alsoconsolidate the beneficial science and tech-nology programs of the Commerce Depart-ment into the new National Institute forScience and Technology [NIST]. The GeneralAccounting Office recently reported that Com-merce Department efforts comprise only a tinyfraction of overall Federal scientific endeavors.Most of the Federal science and technologyprograms are carried out elsewhere in govern-ment.

Many of the Commerce Department’s tech-nology programs have become notorious asthe golden gooses of what Labor SecretaryRobert Reich calls corporate welfare. A primeexample is the Advanced Technology Program[ATP], which provides multi-million dollarhand-outs to some of the Nation’s industry gi-ants. In most cases, ATP grants amount tonothing more than pork gone high-tech.

T.J. Rogers, the CEO of Cyprus Semi-conductor, recently offered these thoughtsabout corporate welfare:

Corporate welfare burdens successful com-panies and individuals with higher taxes andhigher interest rates. And, as with socialwelfare, corporate welfare often hurts the in-tended beneficiary. The Department of Com-merce is one of the primary vehicles for cor-porate welfare.

Our plan puts an immediate stop to thesetaxpayer funded giveaways.

Here again, we are moving closer to a gov-ernment that makes more sense, where simi-lar functions are housed together and thewaste and duplication eliminated. The usefulprograms of the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration, including the NationalWeather Service, and the standards functionsand labs of the National Bureau of Standards,are merged into the new NIST.

We consolidate Federal statistical functions,merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis[BEA] with the Bureau of Labor Statistics[BLS]. The Bureau of the Census will be heldin the Office of Management and Budget forup to 6 months, in anticipation of the creationof a unified Federal Statistical Agency.

Our plan to dismantle the Department ofCommerce will clean out the bureaucratic clut-ter from this attic of the Federal Government,eliminating over 40 unnecessary agencies andprograms and shrinking those that have growntoo big. For example, the plan terminates theU.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, theTechnology Administration, the Economic and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10881October 26, 1995Statistics Administration, the Economic Devel-opment Administration, and the Minority Busi-ness Development Administration.

We eliminate the Office of Technology Pol-icy, the Advanced Technology Program, theManufacturing Extension Partnership, the Fed-eral Laboratory Consortium for TechnologyTransfer, and numerous other duplicative orwasteful programs.

Our plan will also free two agencies fromthe burden of government red tap. The Na-tional Technical Information Service will beprivatized and the Patent and Trademark Of-fice will be made into a government corpora-tion.

Our efforts to dismantle the Department ofCommerce are an important first step indownsizing the Federal Government and let-ting the American people keep more of whatthey earn and save.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. ENGEL].

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in re-sponse to the last speaker from Michi-gan, did you know that in your district19,170 working families will have theirtaxes increased by this Republican bill,and in Michigan, students will have topay $211 million more for student loansbecause of this bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gentle-woman from North Carolina [Mrs.CLAYTON].

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, thedriving force behind today’s vote onthe budget reconciliation is the goal tobalance the budget by the year 2002. Ibelieve most of us in Congress supportthe goal of balancing the budget. Thequestion is, how, by what means, whomakes the sacrifice, who will balancethe budget on whose back?

Every citizen has the goal of bal-ancing their personal budget. We makedecisions, we make choices. We can de-cide to purchase a luxury automobile ifwe wish, but if an average Americanpurchases a luxury automobile, theymay have to sacrifice paying for theirhouse, providing their children nutri-tious food. They may have to sacrificeproviding their children with goodhealth.

Most Americans, I believe, wouldforgo a luxury automobile in favor ofchoosing to do the right thing, support-ing their family, supporting their el-derly, supporting their children, pro-viding for the basics.

We have a choice today. We can de-cide to pay the luxury tax of $245 bil-lion for the most wealthy Americansand for those who do not need it, or wecan decide to provide for the healthcare of our seniors, provide for thehousing of our poor, provide for edu-cation of our children. We can forgogiving the 1 percent of our citizens,those who earn over $100,000, a tax cutthat they have not even asked for.

Let us balance the budget, I say. I amfor that, and so are many of my col-leagues on the Democratic side. Forthat reason, we should reject the no-tion that the only way to balance thebudget is to accept the Gingrich pro-posal of balancing the budget.

I support the Democratic substitute.Why? Because they balance priorities.They protect the poor. They make surethat Medicaid is there as an entitle-ment, and they fund the welfare pro-gram. If we are going to balance thebudget, make sure we balance the pri-orities for all Americans, the poorAmericans, which are the majority. Wedo have choices. Let us make the rightdecision for all Americans.

b 1315

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from California [Mr.RADANOVICH].

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,today is a great day in America. Asyou all know, it is fall. Back in myhometown of Mariposa in California itis also fall, and what appears aboutthis time of year is something that isknown as a face fly. Why they call it aface fly is because if you are outsideand you try to do some work, you aretrying to get something done, you getthis tiny bunch of flies that are in youreyes, in your mouth and buzzing inyour ears, and they are a major dis-traction.

Ladies and gentlemen, the FederalGovernment has become a face fly inthe faces of the American people. I be-lieve that we were sent here by theAmerican people last November 8 toget American Government out of ourfaces.

This budget gives that face fly a goodswat. It gives freedom to the Americanpeople and freedom from a body in thisCongress for the last 40 years that hastried to be America’s mother, tried tobe America’s father, tried to be Ameri-ca’s pastor, tried to be America’s em-ployer. We are giving freedom back tothe American people to live their ownlives.

I would imagine that I have gotworking poor in my district and theirmessage to you is, get out of my face.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. BECERRA].

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, Iwould ask my colleague, the gentlemanfrom California, to take a closer lookat this budget, because he may notknow this but 52,385 working familiesin his district in California will havetheir taxes raised through this Repub-lican reconciliation bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Mary-land [Mr. MFUME].

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to this legislation and Iurge my colleagues to do the same. Thebill before us represents bad policy; itis bad for America on several fronts,and I frankly fear for the future of ourNation should this legislation becomelaw.

Supporters of this legislation arelikely to talk about the future. Theywill say that over the next 7 years thisbill will lead us toward a balance budg-et, and that they are doing this fortheir children and grandchildren.

Yet what kind of a world will thesefuture generations be inheriting?

They will be living among seniorswho do not receive adequate medicalcare or enough income to survive, de-spite having worked all their lives.

They will be surrounded by under-educated people, who were bought up inpublic schools that were plagued bydrugs and violence and out-of-datebooks. Most of these people will thenbe relegated to menial jobs becausethey cannot afford a college education.

Everwhere they look, there will bewhole families without adequate hous-ing and without adequate help. Entirecommunities will be subject to decima-tion by crime, the lack of viable busi-nesses, and by abject poverty.

Mr. Chairman, if this bill becomeslaw our children and grandchildren willbe living in a world where hard work isnot rewarded unless it reaps more than$100,000 per year.

This bill is rife with problems. In al-most every area that this bill touches,it has the potential to wreak havoc onmillions of Americans.

To add insult to injury—and therewill be injury to millions of this Na-tion’s most vulnerable citizens—thisbill then gives aid and comfort to thosewho need it the least.

Let us look at just two unrelatedareas which demonstrate the pain thatthis bill will inflict on millions of hardworking Americans—the provisions ad-dressing Federal employees and thoseaddressing the Community Reinvest-ment Act.

Under this bill, Federal employees’contributions to their Federal retire-ment system will be increased andtheir cost-of-living adjustments will bedelayed. In other words, Federal em-ployees will be paying more and receiv-ing less under this plan.

On another issue, this bill dilutes the effec-tiveness of the Community Reinvestment Act[CRA], which has been essential in past yearsin assuring that banks return some of themoney they earn to the communities in whichthey are located. Through several provisions,this bill effectively exempts close to 90 percentof the banks and thrifts from CRA coverage.The bill also eliminates the sole enforcementmechanism in CRA.

While these two issues may not appear tobe related, they are both in this bill and theyare demonstrative of the destructiveness thislegislation will cause to average Americans.

While I will not claim that this Congressunder Democratic rule was able to resolve allof this Nation’s problems, at lest we attemptedto address them. This bill is simply saying tothe old, the infirm, the middle class, the work-ing poor, the students, and the children, thatCongress no longer cares about their pain.

With this bill, we are saying thatCongress has new priorities, and theaverage American is not one of them.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill.Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-

imous consent that the gentlemanfrom Missouri [Mr. CLAY], the rankingDemocratic member of the Committeeon Economic and Educational Opportu-nities, be permitted to control the next

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10882 October 26, 199516 minutes of time on our side and thathe be permitted to yield portions ofthat time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMinnesota?

There was no objection.Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.

Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALK-ER].

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, let ustalk in realistic terms about the mid-dle class in America. The fact is themiddle class carries the huge workingburden for this entire country. The factis that what has happened over the lastfew years is that the middle class, inorder to survive, has had to go fromone-earner families to two-earner fami-lies and sometimes now to three- andfour-earner families just to keep pace.

What has Government done along theway as we have taken on the middleclass? Well, what we have done is lit-erally taken them on by raising theirtaxes. We have raised their Social Se-curity taxes, we have raised their Med-icare taxes, we have raised their in-come taxes, and over the last 20 yearsmore and more we have underminedtheir ability to keep what they earn forthemselves and use it for their fami-lies.

The coup de grace was literally putin place a couple of years ago whenthis administration, and this Congressraised taxes enormously, the biggestsingle tax increase in history. Even thePresident now says it was too muchtax. It was a huge tax increase. What itdid was literally programmed in tax in-creases now and well into the future.

What we are trying to do in our budg-et is give back a little bit of thatmoney to those people, to take awaysome of the tax increase that was im-posed on them 2 years ago.

What do we hear? Oh, it is a tax cutfor the rich. No, what is really does isgoes to average middle-class Ameri-cans in a $500 per child tax credit andgives them back some of what wastaken away from them by this Con-gress and by this administration.

Democrats do not like that. But thefact is that that is what has to be doneif middle-class America is going to getback that which they earned for them-selves.

What is the plan that we are offeredin opposition to what we are doing?They want to continue those pro-grammed tax cuts right on into the fu-ture. This year it will be $188 more theaverage family. Next year it will be$159 more for the average family. Theycontinue those tax increases right outinto the future. That is wrong. Middle-class America deserves the tax breakthat is contained in this budget.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman. I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. ENGEL]

Mr. ENGEL. In response to the lastspeaker from Pennsylvania, did thegentleman know that in his district12,921 working families will have their

taxes increased by this Republican billand in Pennsylvania college studentsgetting loans will have to pay $400 mil-lion more?

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-self 2 minutes.

(Mr. CLAY asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, for almosta year, the Republican party has beenmaking extravagant promises to theAmerican people in the form of theircontract on America.

A lot of well-meaning, sensible peo-ple bought into this charade. In streetlanguage, the Republicans are pullingoff a classic bait and switch; they madea set of promises to the voters in orderto gain power, but now they are deliv-ering a different bill of goods that willsmother the aspirations of middle-classfamilies. Republicans are rewardingtheir rich supporters by hurting thosewho simply want to pursue the Amer-ican dream through higher education.

To help finance their tax cuts for therich, the Republicans propose to cut $10billion from the student loan program.For many middle class, hardworkingfamilies, student loans have done moreto open the doors of opportunity fortheir children than any other programestablished by the Federal Govern-ment.

The American people did not ask theRepublicans to give a multi-billion dol-lar tax cut to the rich. The Americanpeople did not ask the Republicans tomake it harder for their children to at-tend college by increasing the cost ofstudent loans.

Mr. Chairman, for 50 years, our na-tional investment in higher educationhas had an extraordinary rate of re-turn. But, obviously, such generosity istoo liberal and too progressive for theRepublican party. On the eve of an-other Halloween season, this House ishaunted by the ghosts of society past,when a college education was a privi-lege reserved for the children of theelite.

I urge my colleagues to defeat thiswretched reconciliation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. BONILLA].

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, this isa great day for America. We have a realchance to vote on a balanced budgettoday using real money, real numbers,and real cuts.

It is wrong to live beyond our means.We do not do it in our homes. We donot do it in our small businesses. We donot do it in our churches. It is wrong tocontinue to indebt future generations.Most of all, it is wrong and dead wrongto reject this one best opportunity toreverse the growth of Government, re-store individual freedom, and lower thepresent and future tax burden for allAmericans.

This budget bill puts America ontrack to a balanced budget and higher

standard of living for all Americans inyears ahead. This bill saves Medicareand the earned income tax credit,which is very important, while reform-ing welfare and providing Americanfamilies with a much needed tax credit.

My colleagues, this is not a perfectbill. The agriculture section of this billmust be improved, and I am hopefulthat it will be. It is a bill that mustbetter address reimbursement for fed-erally mandated Medicaid treatment.Also lost will be an opportunity to re-peal a big boondoggle, the Davis-BaconAct. But we can make these improve-ments.

I urge Members to vote ‘‘yes’’ on thisbill.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from Texas,[Mr. GENE GREEN]

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, does my colleague, the gen-tleman from Texas, know that in hisdistrict, if this bill passes, 51,213 tax-payers will pay in increased taxes be-cause of changes in the earned incometax credit and in Texas he will lose $337million in student loans?

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from NewJersey [Mr. ANDREWS].

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the ranking member for yieldingme the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposi-tion to the Republican bill and in sup-port of the coalition alternative. TodayI believe that there is a majority ofprinciple for a balanced budget butonly a partisan majority for the bal-anced budget plan offered by the Re-publican majority. That is because theRepublican majority asked those whoare best able to help themselves to dothe least and those who are least ableto help themselves to do the most. No-where in this budget is that more evi-dent than in the field of education, andnowhere is that more evident than inthe direct lending program which isabolished by the Republican bill.

My friends, the Republicans are abol-ishing the direct lending program be-cause it works so well, because itshows American students and Amer-ican taxpayers that this programworks better than the billion-dollar-a-year corporate welfare giveaway to thebanking industry, than to the hundredsof bureaucracies that have sprung uparound the country wasting the moneyof students and taxpayers and families.

Direct lending will be preserved afterthe President vetoes this bill and wecome together as a principled majorityfor a balanced budget. But none of usshould vote for a bill that says to ajanitor that we will raise your taxeswhile we lower the taxes of the personwhose office you clean at night. No oneshould vote for a bill that says to thesalespeople working for that companypresident, your children will pay moreto go to college or will not go at all, at

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10883October 26, 1995the same time that the largestargibusiness in America walk off scot-free. It is the right principle. It is thewrong path to get there.

Our principled majority will join to-gether after our President has spokenand pass a 7-year balanced budget theright way. This is not it.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.Chairman, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to thedistinguished gentleman from Florida[Mr. BILIRAKIS].

(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, weall want America to remain the strong-est country in the world. We want ourchildren to grow up healthy, well-edu-cated, drug free, and prosperous. Andwe want to reduce the burgeoning Fed-eral deficit.

However, we on this side of the aislerecognize that we cannot achieve ourfirst two goals without first addressingthe deficit. We simply must get controlof escalating Federal spending.

Former Senator Paul Tsongas madethis clear when, appearing before myHealth and Environment Subcommit-tee earlier this year, he testified:

The bipartisan commission on entitlementand tax reform shocked even cynical inside-the-beltway types by pointing out that, onthe current path, entitlement programs plusinterest will exceed all Federal revenues bythe year 2012.

Mr. Chairman, that is just 17 yearsaway.

We do not like having to say, overand over, that Federal Governmentspending must be contained, that wastemust be eliminated, that the bloatedbureaucracy must be deflated and thatall programs must be examined with aneye toward cutting. We do not like toargue, over and over again, that weneed a balanced budget amendment anda line-item veto.

It would be much easier to just keeppiling money on every program yearafter year. But it would not be respon-sible. Unwarranted scare tactics andfalse information to score cheap politi-cal points do not help.

Mr. Chairman, we must pass thislandmark budget reconciliation bill tobalance our Federal budget and beginto honestly address our Nation’s prob-lems.

Support this bill.

b 1330

Mr. CLAY. Mr. chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. ENGEL].

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in re-sponse to the last speaker, did youknow that in your district, 32,028 work-ing families will have their taxes in-creased by this Republican bill, and inFlorida college students getting loanswill have to pay $276 million more?

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from RhodeIsland [Mr. REED].

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to this budget reconcili-ation before us today.

At the very time in our history whenwe need to invest more in education,this bill takes a step backwards. Itgoes after important programs thatwill help improve our education, likesetting higher standards for ourschools, providing for safe and drug-free schools, providing technology forour schools. These are devastating cutsto education.

When you look at the reality and getbeyond the rhetoric, for working fami-lies in Rhode Island, this is even worsethan the educational cuts. When youlook at the Medicare proposals and theMedicaid proposals, you will see work-ing families in Rhode Island have thecruel choice of saving more money totake care of aging parents or savingmoney to invest in their young chil-dren, indeed probably choosing betweenwhich fortunate child will go to collegeand which will be forced into the world,a complex world, without benefit ofhigher education. We can and must dobetter to ensure all of our citizens, allof our citizens have access to qualityeducation.

Indeed, this whole proposal rests onvery, very shallow grounds. The directloan program is an example of a pro-gram that works for America, thatsaves money for taxpayers, is univer-sally accepted and applauded by stu-dents and colleges alike, yet targetedfor extinction. Why? Because it workstoo well, because it displaces bank-sub-sidized loans rather than providing di-rect loans to American students. Thisgimmick was employed in this new billby changing the budget rules so wecould make this efficient program lookmore expensive rather than more effi-cient as it in reality is.

These types of gimmicks underscorethe cruel cuts imposed on this bill. Wehave to invest in education. Our eco-nomic prowess today is a result of con-sistent Federal policies, beginning withthe GI bill, stretching through Pellgrants, all of them aimed to improvehuman capital, the ability of our citi-zens to be the most educated, the mostproductive in the world. Yet we turnour back on that proud history andcondemn our Nation to ignorance.

I reject this measure.Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Indiana[Mr. HOSTETTLER].

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman,while I come to the floor to express myoverwhelming support for this rec-onciliation bill, I want to make a veryimportant point. This debate today isabout so much more than the nuts andbolts of achieving a balanced budget,about accusations that Republicans aregiving a tax break to the wealthy orabout irresponsible individuals callingan almost $2,000-per-person increase inMedicare, a spending cut.

This is about doing what is right,what is decent, and what is required ofus to do if our children and grand-children and our parents have any

chance of surviving the failure of pastgenerations of lawmakers to exerciseany kind of fiscal responsibility. Thisis plainly and simply the right thing todo.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, as Iknow when I sit down we are going tohear some remarks about those peoplein my district impacted by this bill,but these are from the same folks thatsaid they were concerned about healthcare for the elderly but when facedwith Medicare’s imminent bankruptcy,they chose bankruptcy. We said wewant to cut taxes for working families,but they did not. We said we want tobalance the budget, but they did not.

Mr. Chairman, I think it just goes toshow that adage, you can fool thecountry once, shame on us, fool thecountry more than once, shame onthose.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentlewoman from Cali-fornia [Ms. WOOLSEY].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to respond to the speakerfrom Indiana, wondering if he knowsthat in his district 31,695 working fami-lies will have their taxes increased bythis Republican bill.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Indiana[Mr. ROEMER].

(Mr. ROEMER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, there isno doubt that we need to cut spendingand balance the budget. The debate isnot about whether we have a balancedbudget, especially with our coalitionbudget that we Democrats will offertoday. It is a question of fairness to theAmerican people and to the childrenand the students of this country.

The big difference between the Re-publican plan and the coalition plan iscutting taxes. The Republican plancuts taxes by $250 billion, so it takesmoney out of very important programslike Head Start for children, wherethey kick children out of Head Startprograms and student aid for studentloans. Now, what are the Americanpeople saying about these tax cuts?When I read about the people who tes-tified before the Committee on theBudget and their testimony, all acrossthis country, in Arizona, New Jersey,they said things such as Mr. FrankRamsey in Arizona, ‘‘We here feel inPrescott what needs to be done first iscut spending long before cuttingtaxes.’’

In Montana, Greg Pearson said, ‘‘Ithink it is absolutely foolish for Con-gress to talk about reducing taxes atall.’’ Lynn Dill in Delaware said, ‘‘Gen-tlemen, I am not looking for a tax cut.I want the best thing for the countryand for the children.’’

The second major difference betweenthe Republican plan and the coalitionplan is that that cuts $10 billion out ofstudent loans. I have Indiana Univer-sity at South Bend [I.U.S.B.] in my dis-trict. The average age is 28. We have

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10884 October 26, 1995factory workers going back to schoolto get new skills so that they can con-tinue to earn money for their families.We have people 55 changing their ca-reers, going to I.U.S.B. This proposalwill say to so many of these studentsthat are 28, 38, and 48 years old, nomore educational opportunities foryou.

Mr. Chairman, let us sacrifice to-gether equally. Let us not do the taxcuts at this time. It is inappropriateand unfair.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Ken-tucky [Mr. LEWIS].

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair-man, for 40 years we had a tax-and-spend Congress. In 1965, the war on pov-erty; for 30 years there has been a waron poverty, $5 trillion has been spent.And what have we got? We have morein poverty, we have more welfare, moreillegitimacy, lower education, highercrime, more poverty, more drugs.

It is time to reform. It is time to bal-ance our budget.

That Congress for 40 years spent usinto a $5 trillion debt. Now, I am notgoing to pretend that today is going tobe easy to vote on this bill, but it istime that we balance our budget.

If a House run by Democrats for 40years had not spent the American peo-ple into the ground, we would havemore resources, but we do not. Todaywe vote on whether to stop the bleed-ing or whether to continue down a paththat will lead our Nation, our seniors,and our children to economic disaster.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. ENGEL].

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, in re-sponse to the gentleman from Ken-tucky, did you know that in your dis-trict 34,543 working families will havetheir taxes increased by this Repub-lican bill, and in the State of Kentuckystudents will have $75 million less forstudent loans?

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. GENE GREEN].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman foryielding me this time.

I want to know how many Memberson the Republican side have had achance to read this bill. Maybe if theyhad, they would notice two things inthe bill. One of them is that it cuts stu-dent loans, but also that in relation tothat, the quote from our majority lead-er on the Senate side that said, ‘‘I wasthere fighting the fight, voting againstMedicare in 1965,’’ and now he is proudto be doing it again. I hope they wouldlook at that bill in relation to thesequotes from this week.

There is an old saying that only theignorant fear education. I rise today tourge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’against ignorance and to vote ‘‘no’’against this careless and irresponsiblebill we have today.

The Republicans, in their zeal to bal-ance the budget, eliminate the stafford

student loan 6-month grace period.This attack on students will increasecollege loan costs by $3.5 billion na-tionwide and $331 million in the Stateof Texas alone. College students willhave to take out additional loans justto pay the interest.

This shows the Republicans’ commit-ment to education, in addition, thecommitment on the plus loan, or raisethe interest rates for parents.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from New York [Ms.VELAZQUEZ].

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Irise in opposition to the Republicanbudget proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the cur-rent Republican budget proposal and urge avote against this attack on working men andwomen.

My colleagues, what we have before ustoday is the naked shift of wealth at its veryworst. We are robbing working class Ameri-cans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Inthe past we have talked about changingspending priorities and investing in workingAmerica. This legislation is nothing more thana debate on de-investing in working America.

In today’s society when the top 4 percent ofthe population’s total earnings already exceedthat of 50 million working class Americans—something is very wrong. Where is the fair-ness in giving more to those who already haveso much, while taking so many desperatelyneeded programs from those that have so lit-tle.

With reductions ranging from the earned-in-come tax credit, and the low-income housingtax credit, to cutting support for education, jobtraining, and infrastructure, this budget finishesthe Republicans’ goal of removing society’ssafety net, and ending many working Ameri-can’s dream of a better life.

In the future we will still see groups of veryprosperous people. But they will be flanked bylarger groups of working poor. Sandwiched inbetween will be an unstable middle class,struggling just to hang on. This new polarizedsociety will make America look more like athird world country than a world leader.

Today’s vote marks the end of an era. Gonewill be the world in which mothers and fathershoped and dreamed that their children’s liveswould be better than their own. Today withthis vote that dream will cease to exist. Mycolleagues, before you vote ask yourself—isbalancing the budget on some arbitrary date,worth the price of our children’s future? I thinknot.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman from Con-necticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to ask the gentleman from Texas aquestion. Does the gentleman fromTexas know how much money he is de-priving his constituents by votingagainst the $500 tax credit?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Texas.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I do nothave that information. But I would

imagine in my district, to my col-league and my friend, who is chairmanof my committee, my district has a$25,000 median income, and they willnot even be eligible.

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Isay to the gentleman from Texas, youhave given statistics. I want you toknow that your vote against the $500tax credit is going to cost your con-stituents $60 million.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consumeand yield to the gentleman from Mis-sissippi [Mr. TAYLOR].

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.Chairman, I am really confused on this.I thought I heard the gentleman fromFlorida [Mr. GIBBONS] yesterday askyou if the $500 tax break was actuallyin this bill. I thought I heard you sayit is not. Now I am asking for a clari-fication. Is it or is it not?

Mr. KASICH. Since I yielded to thegentleman, the actual $500 tax credit isnot contained in this bill, because wewent from a bill that had 350 billiondollars’ worth of tax relief to $245 bil-lion. And now, the simple fact of thematter is that at the end of the day wewill march on this floor in a conferencereport on reconciliation with a $500 taxcredit contained in the final product.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. But it isnot in this bill?

Mr. KASICH. I control the time.Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am

sorry.Mr. KASICH. I cannot tell you what

the ratio adjustment would be, but Iwould hope that nobody would attemptto distort or try to deceive people thatit is somehow not the intention of theMembers in this House to deliver a $500tax credit.

Now, you cannot have it both ways.Out of one side of your mouth you can-not say we want to have it, we do notwant to have any tax relief for Ameri-cans, and then on the other side of yourmouth berate us because we do nottechnically have it done because of theway in which we do our scoring rules.

So the bottom line is we will have a$500 tax credit, and as the gentlemanfrom Connecticut just pointed out, oneof the last speakers is going to loseabout $60 million from his district be-cause he opposes the $500 tax credit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe——


Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, can theChairman maintain order in the House?Regular order.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Par-liamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.BILIRAKIS). The time is controlled bythe gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Par-liamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thegentleman from Ohio has chosen atthis point in time to yield to the gen-tleman from Wisconsin.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10885October 26, 1995Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.

Chairman, I am not asking the gen-tleman from Ohio for a parliamentaryinquiry. I am asking you for a par-liamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Thetime is controlled at this point.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the very distinguished gen-tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KLUG].

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman, my colleague on theCommittee on the Budget, and con-gratulate him for all the terrific workhe has done.

Friends, last month, a close friend ofmine, Rick Raemisch, sheriff of DaneCounty, had a baby with his wife, Col-leen. My family sent him off, as youmight expect, a present and said, ‘‘Con-gratulations.’’

This place managed to send, alongwith our President, a tab for $190,000.That is the interest that little babynow owes this country because of thenational debt this Congress has run upover the last 30 years.

I have got three boys at home, ages 3,6, and 10, and combined, all of themnow owe a half-million in interest pay-ments because this Congress has notbeen able to control spending over thelast three decades.

We have to balance the budget be-cause this plan does it over the next 7years, and it saves the promise ofAmerica for Rick and Colleen’s littlebaby and for my three little boys.

It also saves Medicare for my 78-year-old mom, who lives in Milwaukee andwho is scared to death if Congress doesnot do something that Medicare is gonecompletely, that it vanishes in theyear 2002. We have to live up to ourpromises to our constituents to bal-ance the budget. That is why I camehere in the first place, and that is whatthis vote is all about this afternoon.

It is about a newborn baby in Madi-son, WI, and it is about my 78-year-oldmom, moms and grandparents and fa-thers all across this country.

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘yes’’ tofinally manage to balance the budgetin this place over the next 7 years.

b 1345Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15

seconds to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. GENE GREEN].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, the gentleman, who is agood friend of mine, did he know thatin his district, 19,900 more workingfamilies would have their taxes in-crease if this bill passes? And in myown district, 57,757 families would havetheir taxes increased if this bill passestoday, 57,757 in my district in the Stateof Texas.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from Ha-waii [Mrs. MINK].

(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman,I thank the ranking member of mycommittee for yielding me this time. Irise in strong opposition to this bill.

It is called a reconciliation bill, butunder my definition, reconciliationmeans bringing people together andtrying to reconcile differences. Themajority party has made no such at-tempt, and we find in this bill crushingdestruction of bills that have broughtso much progress to our country. InMedicare and Medicaid, they are goingto cut $455 billion.

We have already seen devastatingcuts in the appropriations bill for thisyear in education, and this bill bringsanother $10 billion of cuts in studentprograms to enable them to go to col-lege. We have always talked about theimportance of education for our future,for our ability to compete globally andhow important it is to support ouryoung people in going to college. Thisbill that we are being asked to vote ontoday crushes that opportunity, deniesmillions of students the opportunity togo to college. This is a backward mov-ing bill. I urge that it be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition toH.R. 2491, the Seven Year Balanced BudgetReconciliation Act of 1995, because it breaksfaith with the promises made to millions ofAmericans who have trusted the Governmentto provide certain basic services which safe-guard their and their family’s health, edu-cation, and welfare.

This reconciliation bill is a process goneamok. It was initially intended to coordinatethe work of all the committees and enable theCongress at the end of the session to knowwhat the total budget spending was and in ad-dition provide for the needed legislative actionrequired to implement actions taken by the ap-propriations committee. The budget processwas intended to bring greater collaborationand cohesiveness in the work of the Con-gress.

This bill attempts to implant a 7-year budgetrestriction by enacting in one bill thousands ofchanges in statutory law intended to achievecuts in spending in order to reach a balancedbudget by the year 2002. It has created chaosand literally abandoned sunshine and opengovernment.

I do not believe that this budget processwas created to foist upon an unsuspectingpublic, who scarcely understands what we aredoing, these monstrous changes in current lawthat could affect so many lives, so drastically,without open discussion and due debate.

Imagine a Medicaid and Medicare reconcili-ation which cuts $455 billion over a period of7 years. These cuts were devised somewherein the back room in secret. There were nopublic hearings on the thousands of sectionscontaining these devastating cuts. These arenot just pages in a bill. These cuts sever thelife connection for our elderly and for many itwill be disastrous choices and heavier burdenson their already hard pressed children.

On page 1242 of this bill, title XI Medicarestates, ‘‘text to be supplied.’’ We have to pre-sume that the 1,000 page bill that we voted onOctober 19, 1995 is what is intended to be in-serted. This bill cut $270 billion of the Medi-care Program without even 1 day of hearings.We know that various sections of the bill werechanged during last minute negotiations, andone wonders what other changes were addedto Medicare, and all the other sections.

Reconciliation means putting together theannual spending bills and making certain that

statutory changes were made to align thespending with the law. That is what reconcili-ation should mean.

Instead this reconciliation has evolved into ademolition process in which wholesale mas-sive destruction of programs are hastily in-cluded under the guise that it is necessarytoday under time targets set in the law for en-tirely different purposes.

One could argue about the necessity of var-ious programs. One could differ about its effi-cacy. But these differences need to be dis-cussed in the light of the day with full andopen disclosure in public hearings and onlyafter thorough and complete understandingabout what is being proposed should they bebrought to the floor for a vote.

There is no justification that we vote toeliminate the Department of Commerce with-out opportunity to debate what happens to allof the programs contained within it. This proc-ess is a disgrace and demeans this institution.There is no reason for this haste. This is delib-erate chaos.

The budget resolution we passed in thespring called for the committees to report theirrecommendations. The Agriculture Committeedid not report their recommendations. None-theless a recommendation is being added tothis reconciliation bill by edict of the Speaker.This bypass of a standing committee is un-precedented. It is a derogation of authorityand threatens the constitutional basis uponwhich we stand.

The 245 billion dollars’ worth of tax cuts aresupposed to be included in this reconciliationbill. Yet on page 1563 of the bill H.R. 2491, itstill says, ‘‘Text to be provided’’. Whatchanges are we voting on compared to the billthat the House passed in the spring?

The page where the welfare reform bill issupposed to be is also blank. We are told thatit is intended that the House passed welfarereform bill is to be inserted.

It is clear to me that the thrust of this 7-yearplan is to abandon the poorest, neediest, andmost helpless of our population. It is definitelya plan that balances the budget on the backsof our children, our poor, our sick, and our el-derly and disabled population.

Furthermore the size of the deficit is in-creased under their plan by the $240 billiontax cut, half of which goes to the 1 percent ofour wealthiest people. Imagine giving thesehuge tax breaks, and on top of that repealingthe alternative minimum tax which currentlyimposes tax on the super rich who otherwisewould escape any payment whatsoever.

The tax benefits given the rich, is paid forby the poor, the ill, the elderly, the unem-ployed, and the disabled. It’s simple mathe-matics. If you give away a tax dollar youshould have collected, in order to still have azero deficit, you have to take away a dollar’sworth of benefit from someone.

No matter what the majority party says, the245 billion dollars’ worth of tax cuts, has to bepaid for in order to have a balanced budget.

Let me outline the most egregious of all thecuts in programs that will result if this Rec-onciliation bill is enacted.

EDUCATION

You recall that in this year’s appropriationsbill for fiscal year 1996 we already cut edu-cation spending by $4.1 billion. A long list ofprograms were eliminated and many were cut

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10886 October 26, 1995back badly. Our education spending priority isgone.

This reconciliation bill proposes an addi-tional $10.1 billion of cuts over the next 7years in various aspects of the student loanprogram. This is a crushing blow to thousandsof students who could not make it through col-lege without this help. The numerous changesin the program will enable the financial institu-tions to toughen the eligibility requirementsfreezing many students from getting theirloans.

H.R. 2491 seriously undermines the abilityof parents and students to get loans, in-creases the costs of these loans, and jeopard-izes the structure and integrity of the program.

Eliminating the Federal interest paymentduring the 6-month grace period is expectedto cost students $3.5 billion over 7 years. Thegrace period was instituted because the great-est number of defaults occurred in the first fewmonths of repayment, when students oftenhad difficulty finding jobs and establishing asteady income.

Republicans have also reduced the amountof money parents can borrow under the PLUSloan program and increased the interest ratecharged to parents.

Perhaps the greatest harm to students andparents will come indirectly from the new costsimposed on lenders, guaranty agencies andsecondary markets. The impact of these newfees and costs will increase costs on lendersand guaranty agencies causing many to leavethe program, limiting access to student aidand result in redlining. This will take us backto a time which only the well-to-do had accessto higher education.

These problems in gaining access to stu-dent aid will also be compounded by the elimi-nation of the direct loan program. While Re-publicans insist that they support student aid,their recent actions speak otherwise. The di-rect loan program is the second student aidprogram that the House Republicans havevoted to eliminate this year. The other pro-gram, the State student incentive grant pro-gram was zeroed-out in the appropriations bill.

TAXES

With respect to the $245 billion package oftax cuts, the House GOP would direct 52 per-cent of the package’s benefits to families withincomes of over $100,000, of which 28 per-cent would go to families with incomes over$200,000. The proposed reduction in taxeswould range from a meager $53 per year forfamilies with incomes of $10,000 to $20,000up to a whopping $10,362 for families with in-comes of over $200,000.

The House GOP reduces the earned in-come tax credit by $32 billion, by rescindingthe credit to families without children, broaden-ing the definition of income used to calculateeligibility, and reducing the income level atwhich families can receive the EITC.

WELFARE

Although not printed in H.R. 2491, I pre-sume the House-passed welfare reform billhas been made a part of this bill. Thesemeasures would desert low-income families intimes of greatest need and punish childrenjust because they are poor.

Most of those receiving welfare—Aid to fam-ilies with dependent children, [AFDC] are chil-dren—approximately 10 out of 14 million re-cipients. The arbitrary lifetime limit of 5 yearsfor cash assistance with cut off benefits tofamilies while ignoring special circumstances

these families endure. This time limit is puni-tive because most recipients are cyclers, un-able to sustain employment and support theirfamilies continuously because at least onevital element is missing: child care, job assist-ance, education, health care, housing assist-ance or transportation.

By refusing to provide all elements of thisnecessary safety net, this bill denies welfarefamilies true opportunity at self-sufficiency.Stringent work requirements as conditions ofcash assistance are unreasonable without jobcreation. It is unrealistic to expect welfare re-cipients—mostly single mothers—to be able tofind a good job paying a living wage while thecountry’s unemployment rate remains high.

Low-income families will be further punishedthrough the discontinuation of entitlement sta-tus for several programs and establishment ofvarious block grants to States in this bill. Bycapping spending for these programs, Statesin times of fiscal hardship would be deserted,unable to receive additional Federal assist-ance despite the fact that the number of indi-viduals relying on government assistancewould grow. By placing programs for low-in-come families into block grants, the bill carriesno assurance that States will use funds forthese needy families.

Funding reductions and benefits caps in theFood Stamp Program, as well as the elimi-nation and block-granting of the school lunchand breakfast programs, will severely threatenchild nutrition in America. In Hawaii alone by2002, nutrition assistance for 50,000 childrenwould be cut; school lunch, the SupplementalNutrition Program for Women, Infants andChildren [WIC] and other child nutrition pro-grams serving 184,000 children would bejeopardized. Nationwide, 14 million children in2002 would lose nutrition assistance, and 32million children could lose nutritional support.

Among other impacts of these welfare provi-sions, the administration estimates that morethan 400,000 American children will lose childcare assistance in 2002—1,450 children inHawaii by cutting $10.6 million over 7 years.Foster care and adoption for vulnerable chil-dren will be cut by $6.3 billion over 7 years—by $32.9 million from children in Hawaii. Childprotection for abused and neglected childrenwill decrease by 19 percent in 2002—24 per-cent in Hawaii. Furthermore, because their pa-ternity has not been established 3.3 millionAmerican children will be ineligible for cashassistance—12,000 in Hawaii—by the time theHouse bill is implemented in 2005.

Just as disagreeable in this legislation aremeasures to deny Federal benefits to legal im-migrants—those who have followed the letterof the law and paid taxes. Most legal immi-grants would be denied by assistance fromSupplemental Security Income [SSI], Medic-aid, food stamps, temporary assistance forneedy families block grant and social servicesblock grant programs.

Finally, the bill before us would change eligi-bility requirements for SSI and reduce spend-ing by $17.6 billion over 7 years. It is appallingthat this bill would allow only those low-incomechildren to receive SSI who are severely dis-abled so as to require institutionalization ifthey are without continuous personal assist-ance. As many as half of the disabled childrenin Hawaii projected to receive SSI in 2002under current law would be denied benefits;the figure is as many as 55 percent nation-wide.

MEDICAID

Once again it is our children, low-incomefamilies, and the elderly that will feel the bruntof the Republican Medicaid plan. The Repub-lican Medicaid plan wipes out guaranteedhealth care coverage for 36 million Americans,most of whom are children and cuts the pro-gram by $182 billion over the next 7 years.

Under the Republican plan no one is enti-tled to coverage for any services, regardlessof how basic—even prenatal care, immuniza-tion for children, and care for the disabled. In-stead of the current Federal guarantee ofcare, States will now be able to decide eligi-bility requirements, the level of benefits andservices, and with at least 20 percent lessfunding they will have no choice but to cut offpeople or cut services.

Children will be among the most vulnerableto suffer from these cuts. The U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services estimatesthat as many as 15,161 children in Hawaiicould lose Medicaid coverage under this plan.Currently 15 percent of Hawaii’s children relyon Medicaid for the basic health needs. Butthe Republican plan will cut Federal Medicaiddollars to Hawaii by $443 million over 7 years.

The Urban Institute estimates that even ifHawaii could make up half of these cuts by re-ducing services and provided payments, itwould still have to eliminate coverage for29,557 people, including 15,161 children in theyear 2002.

The other primary group of people who willbe hurt by the Medicaid cuts is the elderly anddisabled who depend upon Medicaid for long-term care. The majority of Medicaid fundsgoes to pay for long-term care—institutionaland home care—for the elderly and disabled.In Hawaii Medicaid currently pays 60% of thecosts of elderly in nursing homes. 74% of Ha-waii’s 3,289 nursing home patients rely onMedicaid to pay their bills.

Under this bill Hawaii’s elderly and disabledwill no longer have the assurance of Medicaidassistance for their long-term care. The pro-gram has been converted to a block grant tostates under an inflexible, potentially inequi-table formula. In addition, the bill repeals fed-eral quality standards for nursing home resi-dents. The bill also allows states to place lienson assets of adult children before their parentscan be eligible for Medicaid.

HOUSING

With respect to housing, the Budget Rec-onciliation Act makes numerous reckless cuts.H.R. 2491 terminates the Resolution TrustCorporation [RTC] and Federal Deposit Insur-ance Corporation’s [FDIC] affordable housingprograms. Under the RTC affordable housingprogram, more than 104,000 residences havebeen sold for $1.5 billion while eliminatingthese programs will save a mere $32 million.These relatively meager savings will abolishthese sensible and necessary services.

HUD’s multifamily property disposition wouldbe practically wiped out. This bill authorizesHUD to sell its multifamily housing projectsand HUD-held mortgages without restriction.There will be no protections for displaced low-income tenants forced to enter the market andlocate suitable housing that will honor avoucher. Tenants will not be guarded fromrent increases and will be required to pay thedifference when rents rise above the value oftheir voucher.

The Rural Housing and Community Devel-opment Service will be required to recapture

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10887October 26, 1995Federal subsidies from rural housing borrow-ers when a home is refinanced or a singlefamily direct loan mortgage is paid off. A low-income family that has spent years savingtheir scarce resources to purchase a home willbe further burdened with repaying principaland interest on a refinanced first mortgage aswell as the interest credit subsidy recapturedupon refinancing. This policy goes contrary tohelping families obtain the American dream;delaying efforts of low-income families to pur-chase their own homes.

Despite weighty testimony that many low-and moderate-income individuals are not cur-rently assisted adequately, this bill eliminatesall enforcement mechanisms of the Commu-nity Reinvestment Act [CRA]. The responsibil-ity of financial institutions to meet the creditneeds of their communities will not be mon-itored. Institutions could invest more outside oftheir communities thereby slowing the growthof these already distressed areas and make itincreasingly difficult for its citizens to obtainloans.

MEDICARE

Last week this House passed Medicare cutsof $270 billion. Medicare is not about coldpieces of metal fastened together to create aspace station or a stealth bomber. It is aboutpeople’s standard of living. It is about havingthe comfort and security to know that if youbecome ill in your years of twilight, or disabledat any age there will be a safety net.

There are already 41 million people in thiscountry without health insurance. Does any-one in this room believe that this number willdecrease as a direct result of these provisionsto cut Medicare?

The majority claims that seniors will havemore choice with their Medicare plan. Surethey will have new choices but in addition, Icaution you to be aware that old choices willbe eliminated. Among the new choices will bethe option to select a medical savings accountthat could have a $10,000 per year deductible;the choice to stay with a skeleton of the tradi-tional Medicare system that will not pay for allthe services it did before; and to select a pro-vider service organization that will be unregu-lated, unsafe, and financially vulnerable, untilStates are able to implement their own regula-tions.

Meanwhile, old choices will be abolished.This bill includes provisions that would removea patient’s legal right to sue for malpracticemore than 5 years after damages were sus-tained even if damages were not discovereduntil after this period of time; patients wouldnot have the choice to select a nursing homethat maintains federally regulated standards;and beneficiaries who exercise their choiceand select a Medicare-plus option could laterfind that they do not have the choice to selecttheir family doctor under their new plan.

Why are we rushing these catastrophic cutswhen we have 7 years at the earliest beforethe Medicare trust fund will become insolvent.The Medicare trustees have not stated that weneed Medicare cuts of $270 billion to makethe trust fund solvent. One Trustee stated that$89 billion is all that is needed. We have 7years to plan these changes and we havedone it 8 times before.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

The reconciliation bill eliminates the Com-merce Department causing needless shufflingof governmental functions while eliminatingsuccessful activities that clearly benefit the

American people especially in areas that pro-mote economic growth, increase the inter-national competitiveness of U.S. firms in glob-al markets, and advance U.S. technology.

H.R. 2491 eliminates four agencies, the Mi-nority Business Development Agency, U.S.Travel and Tourism Administration, Tech-nology Administration and the Economic De-velopment Administration. The remainingCommerce programs not eliminated are trans-ferred to existing agencies or departments orconsolidated in newly created agencies.

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Administrationand the Economic Development Administrationhave been particularly important to economicand business development in Hawaii. Thesetwo key agencies were major contributors tothe economic recovery of Kauai following Hur-ricane Iniki.

It is highly contradictory that Republicanswho pride themselves as supporters of privateenterprise would eliminate a whole agencydedicated to improving business and eco-nomic development.

The transfer of the National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration [NOAA] to a newagency threatens weather services, Stategrants, fisheries, research, navigation, andsanctuaries nationwide. Negative effects ofthis provision will be felt the hardest in Hawaiias numerous programs lose funding or are ter-minated.

Finally this bill contains a provision to lift theban on export of Alaska North Slope [ANS]crude oil which would have disastrous effectson Hawaii’s consumers, who already pay thehighest gas prices in the Nation. According toindustry experts, this measure could increasewellhead prices for ANS by more than $2 perbarrel, which would translate directly into sky-rocketing gas costs for Hawaii, whose refiner-ies run on 60-percent crude oil. The 22-year-old export ban on ANS has enabled Hawaii’srefineries to hold costs down.

Should the ban be lifted, as gas prices startto rise, Hawaii and the U.S. territories wouldbegin to receive less ANS crude. According tothe State’s largest refinery—BHP petroleumAmericas—removal of the export ban wouldmake exports to Pacific rim countries more at-tractive. The ANS provision is terribly irrespon-sible, at a time when the United States is im-porting nearly half of its petroleum, to allowdomestic oil to go to foreign countries.

This is just a brief description of the thou-sands of harmful consequences of this bill.This bill must not become law. It destroysAmerica’s belief in what Government standsfor.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Con-necticut [Mr. SHAYS].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to just have a very calm dialogwith my good friend; he truly is a goodfriend and someone I respect fromTexas. I would just ask the gentlemanto share that, the gentleman says inmy district, What?


Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Texas.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, 11,207 would see increases intaxes from earned income tax credit,but also your district would benefitfrom the increased taxes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, so thegentleman is talking about the earned

income tax credit. Is it the gentleman’spoint on the floor of the House thatany of my constituents who get theearned income tax credit will get lessnext year?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, if the gentleman will con-tinue to yield, the number, the 11,000number is based on the number of con-stituents you have that are eligible forthe earned income tax credit.

Mr. SHAYS. Nobody will be takingany earned income tax away. They willnot get an increase.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Theywill. Under this bill, there will be lessearned income tax credit.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-ing my time, I just think the numbersyou all are using are bogus. I am fed upwith it. These are not accurate num-bers. You are not disclosing that it isto be increased. There is no cut to aconstituent in my district because ofthe earned income tax credit. It hasgot to end.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄3minutes to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. OWENS].

(Mr. OWENS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to two provisions inthis mean-spirited attack on edu-cational opportunity and on the lowestpaid workers in America, the peoplewho are covered by the Service Con-tract Act. There is no need to go afterthe workers in the Service ContractAct. it does not have anything to dowith increasing revenues for this coun-try. It will not cost us anything in taxexpenditures; however, it may cost agreat deal in food stamps and unem-ployment insurance if we end the serv-ice contract and lower the wages of thelowest paid workers in the country.

Wage determinations under the Serv-ice Contract Act in 30 cities come outto $6.07 per hour for janitors, $5.42 forfood service workers, $5.59 for guards.Why are we going after these lowestpaid workers in America? Why is themean-spirited attack on workers con-tinuing through the ReconciliationAct? It does not save any money. Itwill cost us money in the end.

We will also lose money by not in-vesting more in education in America.Educational opportunity is an invest-ment. It is not an expenditure. We needto widen the amount of money avail-able in discretionary programs so thatwe can restore many of the cuts madein education. We want to restore thecuts in title I. We want to restore thesummer youth employment grant. Wealso want to make certain that the jobtraining programs which are defundedhave money restored. If we extend thisattempt to balance the budget over a10-year period instead of a 7-year pe-riod, we can gain back many of the dol-lars that are needed to restore theseeducational cuts in the budget.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10888 October 26, 1995Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to

this mean-spirited attack on educational op-portunity in America and on the lowest paidworkers in America.

Education has become a matter of individualeconomic survival in this country. You cannotsucceed, you cannot earn enough to supporta family, you cannot achieve the Americandream, without postsecondary education.Americans understand this and they nowmake enormous sacrifices to obtain access tothe halls of higher education, working extrahours, taking second jobs, scrimping, saving,and, inevitably, assume crushing debt bur-dens.

Instead of honoring the determination andthe responsibility of these Americans, todaythis House is about to make their struggle thatmuch harder, piling on aid cuts of more than$10 billion. Many families will not be able toafford cuts of these magnitude. More impor-tantly, no family should be asked to shoulderthis additional burden. There is no high pur-pose behind all this; the only reason we aresavaging these programs is to free up moneyfor the Republican tax cut payoff.

This bill also wages a parallel assault on el-ementary and secondary education and jobtraining, threatening both the availability andthe quality of educational and training opportu-nities for millions of American children. Thedramatic reduction in permissible discretionaryspending that would be imposed by this billbetween now and the year 2002 will savageFederal assistance for elementary and sec-ondary education. The Labor-HHS-Educationappropriations legislation passed by the Houseearlier this year offers just a preview of thecarnage to come.

The title I program, which supports tutoringand remedial educational services for low-in-come children and others who are falling be-hind in school, is cut by $1.1 billion, or 17 per-cent, throwing 1.1 million educationally dis-advantaged students out of the program. TheSafe and Drug-Free School Program, whichprovides support to nearly every school districtin the country for drug abuse education pro-gramming and antiviolence activities, isslashed by 60 percent, eliminating services to23 million schoolchildren. Cuts in funding forthe Adult Education Act will deny services to125,000 illiterate adults next year. Cuts inHead Start will toss nearly 50,000 preschoolchildren out of that acclaimed program. Sup-port for training for disadvantaged youth is cutin half and the entire summer youth employ-ment program is eliminated, denying 600,000young people job and education opportunitiesnext summer.

These draconian reductions, I emphasize,are just the beginning; this is just the firstyear, the first cinching of the garotte on edu-cational funding imposed by this legislation.More than $36 billion will be bled from edu-cational programs over the next 7 years.

The debate today is not about deficit reduc-tion and balancing the budget. The issue ishow we go about reaching the balanced budg-et and what programs should be given priorityfor funding. Earlier this year, the Congres-sional Black Caucus put forward a budget pro-posal which, like the Republican plan, bal-anced the budget over 7 years. We did not cutFederal support for education by one dime. In-deed, we nearly doubled spending for edu-cation, training, and other human investmentprograms. We expanded and improved edu-

cational opportunity in America and, at thesame time, eliminated the deficit, balanced theFederal budget, and provided a tax cut toworking families as well. It is not necessary toattack education in order to achieve the pro-fessed goals of the majority.

But attack education is what this legislationdoes, virtually and violently. Key Federal in-vestments in education which make the Amer-ican dream possible for all of our citizens areblotted out. Key Federal investments in edu-cation which make the American dream pos-sible for all our citizens are blotted out. KeyFederal investments in education which makeour economy thrive are extinguished. This leg-islation does not provide for the future of ourchildren and youth—it destroys it.

I oppose the repeal of the Service ContractAct because it is nothing more than an assaulton the standard of living of some of the hard-est working men and women in our Nation;and it is an assault which will deprive workersand their families of a fair wage, health insur-ance, and pension protections for their senioryears.

The Service Contract Act has enjoyed bipar-tisan support since it was enacted in 1965 andamended in 1972. The law has been virtuallywithout controversy because it protects someof our most exploited and victimized workersin our Nation. Today, 30 years later, the Serv-ice Contract Act continues to protect almost 1million workers—most of whom are minorityand female workers in low-wage occupations.For example, service contract workers includecooks, bakers, cashiers, mess attendants,cleaners, custodians, janitors, housekeepingaides, window washers, trash collectors, me-chanics, clerks, small equipment mechanics,cafeteria workers, food preparation workers,machinery and furniture repair workers,landscapers, keypunchers, and laundry work-ers, to name but a few.

The single largest occupation covered bythe Service Contract Act is janitor, porter,cleaner which, in 1986, accounted for 18 per-cent of the total SCA-covered work force. Theother largest categories are housekeeping aid,security guard, mess attendant, and food serv-ice worker. These occupations are ones inwhich the employment of women, African-Americans, and Hispanics predominates. Ac-cording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of allemployed janitors, porters, and cleaners, 34percent are women, 24 percent are African-American, and 11 percent are Hispanic. Inhousekeeping occupations—performed outsideprivate homes—84 percent of such workersare women, 31 percent are African-Americans,and 13 percent are Hispanic. The food prepa-ration and service occupations also consist ofhigh proportions of women and minorities.Fifty-seven percent of these jobs are held bywomen; 12 percent are held by African-Ameri-cans, and 13 percent are held by Hispanicworkers. Thus, the repeal of the Service Con-tract Act will injure, in particular, low-wageworkers and primarily women, African-Ameri-cans, and Hispanic workers.

Repeal of the SCA would shred the safetynet, as modest as it is, for these service con-tract workers, many of whom earn a verymodest wage even with the Service ContractAct. For example, janitors in Atlanta, GA, re-ceive $12,730 under the Service Contract Act.In St. Louis, MO, janitors make $12,860 annu-ally and in a high-wage area like Boston, jani-tors make $17,200 annually. When the Fed-

eral poverty line of $14,754 for a family of fouris considered, it is clear that even with theprotections of the Service Contract Act, work-ers still need the protection of the act.

One of the myths about the Service Con-tract Act is that it no longer protects low-wageemployees, but rather protects high tech-nology professional and managerial employ-ees. But the act contains numerous exemp-tions for many types of service contractsunder which so-called high technology, highwage workers are employed. There are threemajor categories of highly skilled and highlycompensated workers who Congress specifi-cally excluded from the Service Contract Actwhen it amended the law in 1976 includingprofessional employees, executive employees,and administrative employees. Another majorcategory of high technology workers who havebeen exempted from coverage includes tech-nicians who repair and maintain computers,scientific and medical equipment, and officeand business machines when those servicesare provided by the manufacturer.

The wage determinations issued under theService Contract Act are not inflationary. In 30cities, SCA wages averaged $6.07 for janitors,$5.42 for food service workers, and $5.59 forguards. Even in a high-cost metropolitan areasuch as Washington, DC, the prevailing wagefor SCA-covered janitors is $6.35 per hour—plus $.91 per hour in benefit contributions. InBoston, janitors receive $8.60 per hour; inMemphis, janitors receive $5.60 per hour; andin Salt Lake City, janitors receive $5.85 perhour. Thus, despite the act’s protection, eventhose earnings are quite modest. Without SCAcoverage, the work force of low-skilled, pre-dominantly minority and female workers,would quickly drop to $4.25 per hour underthe pressure of the procurement system.

In summary, the Service Contract Act hasallowed workers to earn a living wage. It hasenabled millions of workers to enjoy the bene-fits of fair wages and fringe benefits such ashealth insurance and a pension typically un-available in this industry. Also, many servicecontractors on Federal service contract jobsmaintain jointly administered labor-manage-ment training programs. Many workers haveparticipated in these training programs andhave been allowed to improve their job skillsand move up the economic ladder. Improvedjob skills for many who might otherwise havelittle or no job training has benefited all servicecontract workers and it also has benefitedtheir employers and the Federal Govern-ment—the ultimate consumer of their services.It is for all these reasons that I oppose repealof the Service Contract Act.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from California [Ms.LOFGREN].

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, on be-half of the seniors, working familiesand especially children in my district,I strongly oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition toH.R. 2491, the Budget Reconciliation Act. Thisbill ignores the priorities of the American peo-ple by its cavalier attitude toward children andworking families. One key purpose of this billis to provide tax breaks for the wealthy; most

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10889October 26, 1995Americans will get nothing back or even paymore under this so-called tax break plan.

My district is made up of hard-workingAmerican families and they have sent me aloud and clear message: they want thoughtfuland measured cuts in our Government, cou-pled with strong safeguards for our elderly, ourfamilies, and our children. This bill ignores thatmessage.

Mr. Chairman, almost 8,000 children in mydistrict will lose their health coverage underthis bill, and thousands of working families willsuffer from the cuts in student loans and high-er taxes. My district, Santa Clara County, willlose $564.6 million in Medicaid funding over 7years and health care officials warn that emer-gency clinics, local clinics, public hospitals,nursing homes and private hospitals could beforced to close their doors. These measuresaren’t part of the message I receive from mydistrict.

This bill also cuts into some of the most im-portant tax provisions that benefit my district.I know that many of my colleagues are dis-mayed that the Earned Income Tax Credit,which provides a true incentive to people try-ing to stay off welfare and into the work force,would be a target of this Congress. Scalingthis back really amounts to a tax increase forlow-wage-earning Americans.

I am equally disappointed that the Majorityhas seen fit to eliminate the Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credit. In 1993, two-out-of-threeof my colleagues on the other side of the aislecosponsored legislation in 1993 to make thiscredit permanent. It made sense in 1993 andit makes sense now. The city of San Jose hascalled this tax provision ‘‘the single most im-portant source of funding for the developmentof affordable housing.’’ Since 1991, 1744 af-fordable units have been developed in SanJose, with a total tax credit of $100 million anda total economic impact of a quarter of a bil-lion dollars. Mr. Chairman, this credit, like theEarned Income Tax Credit, helps people to-ward self-sufficiency, spurs local economies,provides jobs for local workers and providesaffordable housing for struggling families.Under this same bill, 7,685 children in Califor-nia will have to go without basic housing. Weneed housing for these children and their fami-lies. Why are we sacrificing effective credits infavor of tax breaks for those who make hun-dreds of thousands of dollars a year?

But this bill is about more than tax creditsand tax breaks, Mr. Chairman. It’s really aboutour children themselves. Kicked off Medicaid,deprived of school lunches, and inadequatelyprotected from hunger, homelessness andabuse by the provisions of this bill, childrenare going to suffer. Did you know that over 50percent of all Medicaid recipients are children?These children are the real losers in this bill.And to top it all off, this reconciliation bill isgoing to cap welfare assistance, meaningeven less money will be available for theseneedy children.

My colleagues, it is clear that the currentmajority lacks interest in struggling families.When this budget takes effect, working Amer-ica will be squeezed even more. What will thismean? More working families unable to affordhealth care, housing, education, child-care andeven food; more problems with unemploy-ment, homelessness and more stress in ourlocal communities. Do we want this? Is thiswhat the American people really asked for inNovember? I know that the people who elect-ed me last November certainly did not.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. GOODLING], the distin-guished chairman of the Committee onEconomic and Educational Opportuni-ties.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to first of all point out whatwe do not do, and then I would like topoint out very quickly what we do do.

First of all, we do not eliminateinschool interest subsidies even thoughAlice Rivlin suggested to the Presidentthat might be the way to go. We do noteliminate the 6-month grace period be-fore students begin repaying theirloans. We do not change the eligibilityor the access to student loans. We donot increase loan origination fees paidby students. We do not increase the in-terest rate students pay on their loansnor do we take away the reduction thatthey are due to get in 1998.

Let me tell my colleagues what we dodo. The number of student loans issuedwill be increased from 6.6 million thisyear to 7.1 million next year. The vol-ume of student loans increases 50 per-cent, rising from $24 billion this yearto $36 billion.

The primary impact of what we havedone really falls strictly with the loanindustry who are going to come upwith over $5 billion. Pell grants underthe House appropriation will be themaximum they have been.

The supplemental education oppor-tunity grants will continue at the samelevel. The college work-study will con-tinue at the same level. The Perkinsloan will continue at the same level.The minority programs, TRIO pro-grams which benefited minorities anddisadvantaged will continue at thesame level. The historically black col-leges, the undergraduate and graduatecollege programs are fully funded atthe same level.

Those are the things we are doing. Atthe same time, we are going to bringdown interest rates so that those peo-ple paying on these loans will get a tre-mendous reduction by the time we getto a balanced budget. That is not myword. That is the word of most econo-mists, including Mr. Greenspan.

So, what we have done has done noth-ing to hurt students. It gives themevery opportunity they have ever hadto get loans, to get more loans, to gethigher Pell grants. We are helping stu-dents, and at the same time we aregoing to help them in the future be-cause we are not going to mortgagetheir future.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. BECERRA].

(Mr. BECERRA asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Take a look at this bill. The Repub-lican bill increases taxes for 14 millionworking families at the same time itallows multinational corporations that

make billions in profits to pay notaxes. The Republican bill taxes sen-iors through the $270 billion cut inMedicare and the $182 billion cut inMedicaid, and at the same time we aregiving the Pentagon $8- to $10 billionmore than the Pentagon even re-quested. Can it get worse? Yes. If youhave students in your family and theywant to go to college, get ready be-cause they are going to have to pay bil-lions more in this Nation to go to col-lege, up to perhaps $5,000 more for thatstudent to go through college. That isa tax because it would not be that waywithout this bill.

So who is helped? Well, this tax cutfor the wealthy and tax cut for cor-porations helps them. As we hear nowfrom Speaker GINGRICH and the Senatemajority leader on the Senate side say-ing, they never wanted Medicare tobegin with. It is becoming clear whothis is benefiting. It is not those whowork and pay taxes. It is for those whojust invest and get money.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the very distinguished gen-tleman from the State of Arkansas[Mr. HUTCHINSON].

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman,when the gentleman on the other sidewill stand and say that someone in mydistrict is going to pay higher taxes be-cause of this reconciliation bill, he ismistaken. Anyone who claims thatEITC reform is a tax increase is eithermisstating the situation, being de-ceived or simply does not understandhow the program works.

The fact is that 85 percent of currentEITC spending is considered outlays ordirect government payments just likeAFDC. Six out of seven dollars beingspent on EITC is above and beyond, asit is returned to that taxpayer, isabove and beyond the aggregate taxespaid. Less of an increase is not a cut. Itis not a cut in Medicare spending, andit is not a cut in the EITC spending.

In addition, in this reconciliation billencompassed is tax relief for millionsof hard-working Americans in the $500-per-child tax credit. The family mak-ing $30,000 with two children sees theirtaxes cut in half.

A family making $25,000 a year withtwo children sees their tax eliminated.Every hard-working American familyin this country will be better off be-cause of this reconciliation bill. Thatis the fact.

For those who listened yesterday onthis floor, I had a colloquy with mem-bers of the Committee on Ways andMeans, with leadership Members inthis body who made a flat commitmentthat we would work to ensure that allAmerican families, all working Amer-ican families will be better off underthis program of tax relief than theywere last year. That is a commitmentand that is the truth. All of this bogustalk and bogus figures about tax in-creases is simply misrepresenting thereality of this reconciliation bill.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10890 October 26, 1995Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. KILDEE].

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, forthose of you who plan to vote for thisbill today, you should do so fully awareof the consequences.

The block grant and funding reduc-tions in the Medicaid Program in thisbill will have devastating effects ondisabled children across the country.

Mr. Chairman, in 1986, this Congressmade changes to the Individuals withDisabilities Act [IDEA] to help Statesestablish and operate comprehensiveearly intervention services for infantsand toddlers with disabilities. In 1993,this program helped 154,000 familiesovercome the challenges of meetingthe needs of disabled infant and tod-dlers. This is a program of proven suc-cess and has solid bipartisan support.Why? Because it works. Talk to yourStates. They will tell you that thisprogram saves money because earlyintervention means that fewer servicesare needed in the future. This meansreduced reliance on medical servicesand families avoid the expensive trag-edy of putting their children in institu-tions.

The infants and toddlers program hasbeen successful because it is conductedthrough a partnership with the Medic-aid Program. In some States over 50percent of funding comes from Medic-aid. The city of Chicago estimates thatthey will lose $45 million annually as aresult of this change to the MedicaidProgram.

If you vote for this bill, know that you will putthis progress at risk and that it will devastatethe dreams of disabled children and their fami-lies.

Many families, who are both poor and mid-dle class, receive much-needed support fromMedicaid for their disabled children. What kindof help do they receive? Wheelchairs, equip-ment used to communicate and the kind ofservices that make it possible for parents tokeep their children at home. Voting for this billmeans running the risk of forcing parents tomake absolutely cruel choices about the mostimportant thing in their lives—their children.

Do you think these parents would give thisup to get a $500 tax cut? Of course not. Vote‘‘no’’ on this bill.

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongopposition to the majority’s budget proposal. Isthere no end to the Republicans’ attack on themost vulnerable in our society? They have al-ready dismantled Medicare forcing seniors topay more for less health care coverage. Now,the Republicans are going after those who—truly cannot—defend themselves, those who—entrust us with their future—the Nation’s chil-dren.

The Republican budget: Takes away healthcare services from over 4 million needy chil-dren; takes away Head Start from 180,000disadvantaged children; takes away basic as-sistance in reading and math from over 1 mil-lion disadvantaged children; and threatens theavailability of school lunches and other nutri-tious meals for 32 million hungry children.

I know the children of my district and thoseacross the State of Ohio will be hurt by thedrastic cuts in health care, education, housing,and child protections alone. Over 150,000 chil-

dren in Ohio will lose Medicaid coverage, andnearly 40,000 will be denied disability assist-ance. Over 600,000 children in Ohio will sufferfrom the drastic cuts in nutrition assistance.Nearly 20,000 children in Ohio will be deniedchild care.

In addition, assistance to over 180,000 chil-dren in Ohio is cut simply because their pater-nity has not been established. Over 8,000 chil-dren in Ohio will no longer have the benefitsof Head Start. Over 32,000 children in Ohiowill be denied the basic assistance in readingand math that they need. Summer jobs fornearly 20,000 Ohio youth who need and wantto work will be eliminated. The families of over150,000 children in Ohio will be forced to payhigher rents, when the median income or theirfamily is only $6,800. To make matters worse,the families of over 700,000 children in Ohiowill have their taxes increased by the Repub-lican budget.

Mr. Speaker, what could these poor—little—innocent children in Ohio and across the Na-tion have done to the Republicans to warrantsuch a coldhearted attack? I urge all my col-leagues to throw off these shackles of oppres-sion being imposed by the Republicans on theAmerican people and vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the very distinguished gen-tleman from the State of Pennsylvania[Mr. CLINGER].

(Mr. CLINGER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I wantto point out that the only constantthat we have in this world is the fact ofchange. We have seen an enormouschange in this country. Science andtechnology have whisked changes bythat are blinding, at a frightening rateof speed. Nevertheless, progress, oppor-tunity, and a hope for a better tomor-row have made most of us willing par-ticipants in this ongoing change.

As we have adopted changing times,so have nearly all of society’s major in-stitutions: the American family, largecorporations, small businesses, com-munities, every institution, Mr. Chair-man, except one, the Federal Govern-ment.

The Federal Government has contin-ued to grow and centralize power anddecisionmaking authority in Washing-ton, DC, without regard to cost or effi-ciency. So, Mr. Chairman, in this era ofdownsizing, when everyone else, every-one else is asked to do more with less,the Federal Government has continuedto swell requiring a greater and greatershare of American family income andbusiness earnings.

For too long, Congress and the WhiteHouse have turned a blind eye to thedire consequences of deficit spendingand the mounting national debt. In theshort-term, we have been a dead weightaround the neck of our economy,crowding out private investments, sti-fling job creation and limiting eco-nomic growth and opportunity. Buteven worse, Mr. Chairman, in the longrun, they have compromised the stand-ard of living of our children and grand-children.

Mr. Chairman, today that ends.Today the House is going to adopt the

first balanced budget in a generation.Today we will finally stop the hemor-rhaging of red ink and get our fiscalhouse in order.

b 1400

So I am proud to rise in support ofthis budget because it is an honestmeasure that does not rely on smokeand mirrors, rosy economic scenarios,and other phony accounting gimmicks.

In a moment I am going to hear, I amsure, how many of my constituents arelikely to be, possibly going to be, dis-advantaged by the passage of thisbudget, but what we will not hear fromthe other side are the hundreds ofthousands of my constituents, indeedall of my constituents, who will be dis-advantaged seriously if we fail to getthis budget in balance by the year 2002,and I rise in strong support of thismeasure.

Over the past several decades our worldhas changed dramatically. Empires havecrumbled, and infant nations have been born.Diseases have been eradicated by modernmedicine, while newer, deadlier ones haveemerged.

In some areas such as science and tech-nology, the change has occurred at a blindingpace. What is invented today may be obsoletetomorrow.

Swift air travel, world-wide television cov-erage, and instance communications havemade our planet a relatively small place.Laptop computers, once the size of livingrooms, have empowered individuals by bring-ing a wealth of information and knowledge toour fingertips.

Keeping pace with the present, never mindcatching up to the future, has made our livesmore complex, more exhilarating, and moreexhausting.

Nevertheless, progress, opportunity, andhope for a better tomorrow have made most ofus willing participants in this ongoing change.And as we have adapted to these changingtimes, so have nearly all of our society’s majorinstitutions.

The American family has undergone a com-plete metamorphosis. Families supported byone breadwinner and one homemaker arenearly obsolete and have been replaced bysingle parent families or double-income fami-lies with latch-key kids.

Large corporations have become smallerand flatter to compete in the global market-place. As we’ve moved from the industrial ageinto the information age, the more successfulbusinesses have learned to integrate workersand technology, and replace conflict with co-operation to improve productivity.

Even the most conservative of institutions,religion, has taken advantage of technologicaladvancements to reach followers and spreadtheir word.

But, during this whirlwind of change, onemajor institution has managed to resist it. TheFederal Government over the past 30 yearshas continued to grow and centralize powerand decisionmaking authority in Washington,DC, without regard to cost or efficiency.Somehow, the Federal Government has beenable to inoculate itself against the constantchanges that are reshaping our world and ourlives.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10891October 26, 1995Its monolithic bureaucracies and rigid

hierarchies have proven to be anathema tocreativity, innovation, and experiment. Per-verse incentives and debilitating inefficiencieshave rendered the Federal Government in-capable of dealing with the Nation’s most vex-ing problems. Though Government oncehelped people overcome obstacles, it now hasbecome an obstacle itself.

In this era of downsizing when everyone isasked to do more with less, the Federal Gov-ernment has continued to swell, requiring agreater and greater share of American familyincome and business earnings. To the dismayof all Americans, we seem to be feeding moremoney to Washington, but getting less back interms of results.

The Federal Government’s inability to adaptto changes in the modern world coupled withCongress’ addiction to spending have resultedin an overwhelming fiscal mess that shouldmake us blush with shame or turn red withanger.

Each year since 1969, the Federal Govern-ment has failed to live within its means,spending more money than it collects in taxesand borrowing to make up the difference. For26 straight years, we have piled more andmore onto our national debt which now standsat nearly $5 trillion.

For too long, Congress and the WhiteHouse have turned a blind eye to the dire con-sequences of these irresponsible spendingpractices. In the short term, deficit spendingand the mounting National debt have been adead weight around the neck of our economy,crowding out private investment, stifling jobcreation, and limiting economic growth and op-portunity.

But even worse, in the long run, deficitspending compromises the standard of livingof our children and grandchildren. We are risk-ing the prosperity of future generations inorder to consume more today.

Well, today, Mr. Speaker, that ends. Today,the House will adopt the first balanced budgetin a generation. Today, we finally will stop thehemorrhaging of red ink and get our fiscalhouse in order.

I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2491,the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconcili-ation Act because it is an honest, crediblemeasure that does not play the popular Wash-ington game of relying on smoke and mirrors,rosy economic scenarios, and other phony ac-counting gimmicks to balance the budget.Rather, it makes the tough decisions that arenecessary to really and truly get to a balancedbudget.

For instance, it saves billions by tackling thedifficult issue of welfare dependency. Not onlydoes it overhaul our welfare system to encour-age work and self-sufficiency, it also attackscorporate welfare by closing $30 billion in cor-porate tax loopholes.

The measure also achieves savings by re-vamping Federal farm subsidy programs sothat American farmers can move away fromdependence on Government support while re-maining competitive in the global market andcontinuing to feed the world.

Some budget savings in this budget are noteasy, but necessary if we are going to makethe Federal Government smaller, more costeffective, and more responsible to the tax-payer. The Government Reform and OversightCommittee, of which I am chairman, craftedthe section dismantling the bloated, misguidedDepartment of Commerce. It will save billions

and serve as a blueprint for future downsizingefforts.

Many provisions in the budget simply makesense. For 70 years, the Federal Governmenthas maintained a helium reserve for nationalsecurity purposes. Today, however, the U.S.military uses B–2 bombers and F–16 fightersto defend the Nation, not blimps. Privatizingthe helium reserve and saving millions of dol-lars is just common sense.

Other provisions are long overdue. As chair-man of the Government Reform and OversightCommittee, I worked to end special pensiontreatment for Members of Congress and theirstaff. The American people have beenscreaming for congressional pension reform,and this budget delivers it.

Another reason this budget package hasearned my support is because it doesn’t relyon the tried-and-failed method of deficit reduc-tion: raising taxes. We can’t tax our way outof debt or into prosperity, and history hasborne that out. This time, instead of hitting thetaxpayers up for more money, we have struckat the core problem: Congress’ addiction tospending.

During the course of debate, we have heardconcerns and criticisms about various line-itemcuts and programmatic changes in the budget,however, we must not lose sight of the factthat balancing the budget is a necessity, not aluxury. In my mind, beside rescuing the stand-ard of living of future generations, balancingthe Government’s books will have two vital im-pacts on our Nation.

First, balancing the budget will significantlyboost our economy by reducing long-term in-terest rates by 2 percent. Families will payless for mortgages, student loans, care loansand credit card payments. Lower interest rateswill help businesses to expand, create jobs,and improve their international competitive-ness. A balanced budget will create 6.1 millionadditional jobs and increase per capita income16.1 percent over the next 10 years.

No Federal Government program can pro-vide the American people as much in benefitsthat a balanced budget can.

Second, and maybe even more important,balancing the budget may restore the Amer-ican public’s confidence in its Government.The Founding Fathers instilled in us a healthdose of skepticism for government, but thishas festered into a deep distrust and cynicismabout government.

Some pundits and political scientists at-tribute these feelings to the Vietnam war andWatergate. I disagree. When I talk to peopleback home who are disgusted with Washing-ton, they don’t mention Vietnam or Watergate,they point to what’s going on today. Theydon’t understand how their leaders can sopoorly manage the nation’s finances.

The public recognizes that many of theproblems facing our Nation—the economy,cultural and moral decay, foreign conflicts—can be influenced, but not completely con-trolled by the President and Congress. Butthey know that managing the Federal Govern-ment’s fiscal affairs is a direct function of Con-gress and the White House, and we havebeen derelict in our duties for too long.

For these people, balancing the budget isnot just about hope, opportunity, and prosper-ity, its about cleaning up the mess in Wash-ington.

As elected officials responsible for govern-ing the Nation, we should not—indeed, wecannot—underestimate the power of regaining

the American people’s trust and confidence.After all, balancing the budget is only the be-ginning, not the final product of the task athand.

I remind my colleagues that balancing thebudget and reducing the size of Governmentis only half of what we must do. Governmentstill has vital functions and can improve thelives of people in many circumstances. Ourobligation is to transform our current 1930’sstyle Government into a 21st century Govern-ment capable of coping with the challengesconfronting modern society.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am proud to votefor this budget. Though I don’t agree withevery detail, I support this measure because itwill balance the budget while still allowingspending to increase at a responsible rate; itwill save Medicare for current and future bene-ficiaries; it will provide tax relief to middleclass American families; and it will invigorateour economy and help create jobs.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5seconds to the gentleman from Texas,Mr. GENE GREEN.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, in answer to my chairmanof the Committee on Government Re-form and Oversight, 28,588 constituentslose——

The CHAIRMAN. The time of thegentleman has expired.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield thebalance of my time to the gentlemanfrom Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS] is recog-nized for 2 minutes.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding thistime to me.

Today America departs from a long,unbroken tradition of bipartisan sup-port for America’s students and for theschools they attend. From collegegrants to Head Start, Mr. Chairman,Republican, as well as Democrat, Presi-dents and Congresses have been inagreement until today. Chapter 1, artseducation, drug-free schools, just nameit, Goals 2000, was the product of a Re-publican President, former PresidentBush. But today the far right, the radi-cal right, is in full throat on the Re-publican side, and so today for the firsttime in the history of this Nation thepublic’s demand of bipartisan supportfor education is being broken.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican pro-posal today cuts student loans for thefirst time in history by $10 billion, andthese proposals never had a single dayof hearing, never had one single publiccomment from that public that insistson bipartisanism. There will be signifi-cant increases in the cost of college forworking families and their children,and now we are hitting them with a bigprice increase for college, an increasedprice tag for college, of 5 billion with a‘‘b,’’ $5 billion.

What do we know about this pro-posal? First, it will, count on it, it willforce students to pay approximately $4billion more for the student loans theyreceive, and for their parents, they willbe able to borrow less than they can

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10892 October 26, 1995now borrow, and it will cost America’sparents $1 billion more than they paytoday to borrow that money.

The sad thing, my colleagues, is thattoday, because of the radical right, wehave abandoned a long, proud Amer-ican tradition of bipartisan support forour students and for their schools.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. GOODLING], the chairmanof the Committee on Economic andEducational Opportunities.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Ohio foryielding this time to me.

What I have been trying to say incommittee for a long time is that webetter talk about excellence and qual-ity rather than access. Let me tell mycolleagues that during the last 5 yearswe have increased, we have increased,spending on Head Start 180 percent.How many students do my colleaguesthink we have increased during thattime? Thirty-nine percent.

Something is not right. The studentsare not getting the help, the childrenare not getting the help. Obviously, theadministrators must be. If we increasespending 180 percent and we only in-crease participation by 39 percent, weare not helping the kind of people weare supposed to be helping.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do not take aback seat because I made some sugges-tions in relationship to chapter 1 andrelationship to Head Start because wemust insist on quality. We cannot justtalk about access because we are nothelping the people we set out to try tohelp.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. FAZIO].

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chair-man, today we finally have an oppor-tunity to vote against the Gingrichagenda, to repudiate a document thatin chapter and verse, in precise detail,dictates the single most egregious re-distribution of wealth in our history.Contained in this budget bill are provi-sions that give the wealthiest familiesin this country, as this chart amplyshows, the top 1 percent, a $14,000 taxbreak. Speaker GINGRICH calls this tap-estry of tax breaks the crown jewel ofthe Republican agenda, but, sad to say,it is really a crown of thorns. As thischart shows once again, families earn-ing less than $50,000 a year, most mid-dle-class families, end up footing thebill. They will lose nearly $650 a yearthrough a combination of tax increasesand benefit cuts.

Mr. Chairman, the Gingrich billtrashes the tax credit for low-incomeworking families; 4.3 million familieswould lose the credit altogether, andanother 14.2 million families would ac-tually see their taxes increase.

The children’s tax credit; jewel orthorn? My colleagues, be the judge.Forty-six percent of the children inthis country will not get a single dimeof the $500 tax credit.

The president of Citizens for Tax Jus-tice, a nonpartisan organization, called

the tax provisions of this bill a hoax.He is right, and the American peoplehave a right to feel wronged. TheAmerican people should not be martyrto a cause they do not agree with anddo not support.

I urge my colleagues in this perhaps-most-significant vote in the years Ihave been in this Congress to voteagainst what is a massive, unprece-dented transfer of wealth that onlymakes worse class warfare in thiscountry.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. FOWL-ER].

(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I risein extreme support of this measurethat gets us on the road to improvedfiscal health for our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, the vote we are about to takemarks a historic change in the way this Nationconducts its business. It shows that this Con-gress is taking seriously its responsibility torein in excess spending and achieve a bal-anced budget—something our Nation has notenjoyed since 1969. This reconciliation meas-ure will help restore the fiscal health of ourNation and provide a brighter future for ourchildren, who will otherwise be saddled withthe consequences of our inaction.

In addition, this bill includes $245 billion intax reductions over the next 7 years. It willallow our citizens to keep more of their ownhard-earned money. By returning these re-sources to our Nation’s families and creatingthe means for greater investment in privateenterprise and economic growth, we will helpto meet the needs of all Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this historicbill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15seconds to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. GENE GREEN].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, conservative estimates ofthe tax increases for earned income taxcredit constituents will increase. I amopposed to the bill because my tax-payers will pay more, but do not takemy word for it. Take Jack Kemp, wholast week said:

I hope you guys do not go too far on re-moving the EITC because that is a tax in-crease on low income workers and the poorwhich is unconscionable at this time . . .

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-imous consent that following the state-ment of the gentleman from Utah [Mr.ORTON] that the gentleman from Texas[Mr. DE LA GARZA], the ranking Demo-crat on the Committee on Agriculture,be permitted to control the next 15minutes of time on our side, and thatthe gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DIN-GELL], the ranking member of the Com-mittee on Commerce, be permitted tocontrol the balance of the time remain-ing on our side, and that each have theauthority to yield to other members.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMinnesota?


Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute 45 seconds to the gentlemanfrom Utah [Mr. ORTON].

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, both ofthe bills that are under consideration,the Republican reconciliation bill andthe coalition bill, will balance on thesame date in 2002 if the projections areaccurate. Both use CBO scoring, butwhat happens if the projections are notaccurate? That is the problem we havehad in the past. It is easy to project abalanced budget. We need enforcementmechanisms to be sure it is there.

The budget under consideration doestwo things which I support. It contin-ues the current practice of enforceablediscretionary caps and extends the pay-as-you-go provisions, but that is it.The coalition budget does additionalsteps, and it places the deficit targetsin law and requires that, if we do notmeet these targets, the President comeback with a recommendation of how tomeet those targets, and requires theCongress to vote, and if the Congresscannot determine how to meet thosetargets, would place into effect seques-tration. It also puts into place tools toaid us in cutting spending like apply-ing the line-item veto to 1996 spendingbills. It also applies the lockbox provi-sion to the appropriation cuts. It alsowould extend, so that we have a morefair representation and more accurateprojections, it would extend projectingand scoring to 10 years, would alsotake emergency spending and put it onbudget, requiring us to create an emer-gency account which we fund and thenspend out of that rather than waivingthe budget to spend on emergencies,and would also eliminate baselinebudgeting.

Mr. Chairman, all of these enforce-ment mechanisms I believe have bipar-tisan support. That is the reason forvoting for the coalition budget, and, ifmy colleagues cannot see their way fitto voting for the coalition budget, atleast let us put these things in in con-ference.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the very distinguished gen-tleman from Delaware [Mr. CASTLE],the former Governor.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongsupport of the 7 year Balanced Budget Act.My commitment to balancing the budget isbased on personal experience. I have livedthrough disastrous times in my own Statewhen we did not balance our State budgetand I have seen the tremendous economic re-covery that occurred when the State took thetough steps necessary to balance its budget.

In the 1970s, the State of Delaware was aneconomic basket case. We had the highestpersonal income taxes in the country—19.8percent—but the State could still not balanceits budget because it was spending too much;businesses were leaving the State as fast asthey could get out. In short, Delaware’s Stategovernment operated the way the FederalGovernment operates today.

Delaware finally decided to face the music,we passed a balanced budget amendmentand began to get our economic house inorder. Since that time, Delaware has been one

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10893October 26, 1995of the economic showplaces of the Nation. Wehave balanced our budget 19 straight times,reduced taxes 6 times; we have created morejobs on a percentage basis than virtually anyother State; reduced poverty more than anyother State during the 1980’s. This would nothave happened if we had not balanced ourbudget.

It’s time for the Federal Government to dothis for the entire Nation. Mr. Chairman, Iknow from my experience as a Governor, bal-ancing a budget is not easy. Tough decisionshave to be made. This legislation makes thosedecisions in a fair manner. I have not agreedwith every provision and have worked hard tomodify some of them.

I strongly support the inclusion of the Cas-tle-Upton-Martini deficit reduction certificationand monitoring provision in the bill. This re-quires a process of that will ensure that westay on path to a balanced budget each yearuntil 2002. I also appreciate the efforts thathave been made to improve the Medicaidfunding formula to ensure that all States aretreated fairly in the necessary effort to reformthe Medicaid System.

Whatever particular differences we havewith specific provisions of this bill, we can notand should not overlook the larger and mostimportant goal of balancing the budget.

Simply put, because of its deficit spending,the Federal Government is eating up moneythat would normally go to businesses and indi-viduals. This year the Government will pay$233 billion in interest on the debt, more thanthe $160 billion deficit for this year. If we don’tchange we will be paying $340 billion in inter-est by 2002.

If the Government stops depleting the poolof money available for savings, it would lowerbusiness’s costs of borrowing and enablethem to invest in the equipment that makestheir employees more productive and in-creases their paychecks. Earlier this year, aprivate economist estimated that balancing thebudget would raise our national output anextra 2.5 percent over the next 10 years. Thatwould mean an average of an extra $1,000 ayear for each American family. The economywould create 2.4 million more jobs by 2005than if we do nothing about the deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office has esti-mated that enactment of balanced budget leg-islation will result in lower interest rates thatwill save the Government over $170 billion ininterest payments by 2002.

Tearing up Uncle Sam’s credit card allowsthe private sector to grow and affects us allfrom lower home mortgages to more businessexpansion.

Balancing the budget is good for us nowand it is great for our kids and the Nation’s fu-ture. I urge passage of the reconciliation bill.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, Irise in opposition to the main GingrichRepublican substitute amendment andin favor of what we call the coalitionproposal that the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. STENHOLM] and others haveworked out.

Balancing the budget is not an issueeveryone is for, reducing the deficit isnot an issue everyone is for, and oursection in agriculture though bears atremendous burden, more than the

norm. We have always provided in thepast 10 years over $50 billion. If everyother committee had done what theCommittee on Agriculture has done, wewould not be worrying here about re-ducing the budget or balancing thebudget. We have done it. We have doneour fair share. But in this case theprocess I must object to. We have nothad a hearing on the freedom to farm,we have not had any discussion. Wehave had votes in the committee whereeverything failed. Basically the free-dom to farm that is in this proposalhas not and does not have the approvalof the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly suggestthat it might be well for us in the agri-culture sector, in the areas where weimpact negatively on Medicare, onMedicaid, that this is not the properprocedure, and I had to go to the Com-mittee on Rules to say, ‘‘We have nothad the opportunity to handle this. Ihope that you do something for us.’’Unfortunately they did not.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition toH.R. 2491, and in support of the Democraticsubstitute.

Mr. Chairman, the process of the develop-ment of this reconciliation bill has brought usa season of surprises:

First, in a year when the No. 1 fiscal priorityof the American people is to balance thebudget, the Gingrich Republicans propose a$245 billion tax cut:

Second, when a primary concern for manyAmericans revolves around providing healthcare for their elderly parents, Republicans cutMedicare by $270 billion; and

Finally—because of Republican conflictsover their own priorities—national farm policyfor the next 7 years has been written in theHouse Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, the 1995 reconciliation proc-ess has turned into the sole forum for estab-lishing national farm policy for the next 7years. In past years, we have had the oppor-tunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy ina deliberative, all-inclusive manner. Whenwe’ve been required to comply with budgetreconciliation instructions, the House Agri-culture Committee has complied to the tune of$50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993.

The confusion this year of the policymakingprocess with the deficit elimination processhas led to paralysis in the Agriculture Commit-tee. For the first time ever, the House Agri-culture Committee has failed to meet its budg-et reconciliation obligations.

As a result—Mr. Chairman—Speaker GING-RICH and his Rules Committee were given thetask of writing farm policy that will take usthrough 2002.

I do want to commend Chairman ROBERTSfor his efforts this year. He was placed in animpossible position. The Gingrich Republicansare requiring a 25 percent reduction in agricul-tural spending in order to provide a $245 bil-lion tax cut. Mr. ROBERTS fought hard earlierthis year for that tax cut to be scaled back, butto no avail. We agree that the tax cut is inap-propriate and that it leads to farm programcuts so deep that the viability of our Nation’sfood production system is threatened.

Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fedpeople in the world. They have a stable andabundant supply of nutritious food, and pay a

lower percent of their disposal income for foodthan any other nation in the industrializedworld. I like to think that the House AgricultureCommittee—on a bipartisan basis and in spiteof what editorial writers say—has played aconstructive role in that success story.

Nevertheless, Speaker GINGRICH, the Re-publican leader, and the Republican whipwrote a letter to Chairman ROBERTS lastmonth. That letter dictated to the AgricultureCommittee—in no uncertain terms—the spe-cific policy option the committee was tochoose in order to meet its reconciliation sav-ings. No room was left for the committee todeliberate—for the committee to obtain theviews of farmers, of consumer groups, of theadministration.

Mr. Chairman, the Freedom to Farm Act in-cluded by decree of Speaker GINGRICH in thebill now before the House, was first introducedas a bill in August. Our committee has notheld one hearing on it. The details of the dairyportion were only made available in Septem-ber: same story—no hearings.

Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region ofthis country have very grave concerns aboutthe agriculture provisions before the House.They represent a sudden and dramatic aban-donment by the government of its roll in shar-ing the farmer’s risk. Farmers are particularlyconcerned that this sudden withdrawal of theFederal Government from sharing their risksmay make the difference in their fight to stayon the farm. Yes, they may know that eachyear they will get a cash payment, but if pricescollapse next year, will that payment beenough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, howmany wheat farmers will be out of business inKansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington? If cot-ton prices fall back down to 45 cents, howmany cotton growers—spread out all over theSouth—will survive? If corn prices are under$2, where will the corn belt be? What if milkprices fall to $9, how many of New England’sdairy farmers can make it?

Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for thebest. But if the best doesn’t materialize, and asubstantial base of our food and fiber produc-tion capacity is lost—will we feel that it wasworth the risk, to have incurred that loss inorder to provide a $245 billion tax cut?

All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and wehave no answers—not even opinions. All wehad in the Agriculture Committee this yearwere a few votes. No discussion. No consider-ation of the views of the farmers, the consum-ers, the businesses that thrive on the productsof agriculture—those hearings on which we’vealways heavily relied. The policy before theHouse was not aired out in the AgricultureCommittee, it was dictated by Speaker GING-RICH and Republican Leader ARMEY.

Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to figure outwhere we went wrong this year but I do knowthis: The most basic needs of our society areat stake and we are nowhere near to a con-sensus on where we should go. The paralysisof the Agriculture Committee and the dissen-sion within the majority party make it clear thatwe need to start over again. We need to sup-port the Democratic substitute and if that fails,we need to vote this bill down and start again.

The American people don’t want this bill andmany American farmers will not survive thisbill. A right-thinking bipartisan majority de-feated this proposal in the Agriculture Commit-tee. Many of my colleagues on the Republicanside know that the agriculture title in this bill is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10894 October 26, 1995wrong. I urge them to resist the Speaker’spressure and to join with us; to oppose this billtoday; and to work with us in trying to reacha consensus on a balanced budget thatdoesn’t undermine agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of mytime.

b 1415

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY].

(Mr. BLILEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, of all the things Ihave done in my career as a publicservant—of all the things that, Godwilling, I may still yet accomplish—Ibelieve I have never been more proudthan I am today, standing in support ofthis reconciliation bill.

For decades, responsible voicesacross the political spectrum havewarned Congress to get control overentitlement spending; today, we heedtheir call.

Since the 1970’s, economists haveforewarned a coming fiscal tragedy ifCongress failed to muster the courageto balance the deficit; today, after 30years of excuses, we will do just that.

For years now, reconciliation was thetime when the promises ended and theexcuses began.

Excuses, And justifications. And ra-tionales.

Excuses that said balancing thebudget was impossible.

Justifications that explained why itcouldn’t be done.

Rationales for the failure of this Con-gress to act.

Today is the day the excuses come toan end; the dawn of a new day, a day ofpolitical leadership.

A day of courage.A new day of accountability in gov-

ernment.Today will be remembered as the day

the new Congress transformed Wash-ington’s approach to government.

We are long overdue.A child born this year will pay more

than $187,000 over his or her lifetimejust to pay the interest on the debt wehave already accumulated.

It’s too late to change that.But it is not too late to change the

growth of that debt in the years ahead.It has taken this Republic more than

200 years to build up a debt of almost $5trillion.

But if we fail to act today, that debtwill more than double in just the nexttwo decades.

If we fail to act today to bring entitlementspending under control, those same entitle-ments—together with interest on the debt—willconsume every dollar paid by every taxpayerby the year 2030.

If we fail to act today, your children, mygrandchildren, will be turned down for collegeloans, for home mortgages, for credit cards—because the money will already have beencommitted, earmarked toward fueling the Gov-ernment’s debt.

But we will act today—and our CommerceCommittee had a major role in getting us tothis day, with historic reforms in Medicare andMedicaid, and with the first-ever elimination ofa Cabinet-level department, the Department ofCommerce.

We will act today. I’m proud of that. TheAmerican people can be proud of it, too.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to our distinguishedcolleague, the gentlewoman fromNorth Carolina [Mrs. CLAYTON].

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, thoseof us who come from rural Americaknow there will be profound implica-tions from this budget reconciliationproposal that is put before us, not onlyfor our farming communities, whichfeed the rest of this country. We knowthat 3 percent of our farmers are feed-ing 97 percent of our population, yetthis bill, which had no hearing, thefreedom-to-farm bill, will now putthose farmers at great peril, becausenow they will pull that security fromthem.

In addition to the farm bill itself,there are other bills in our areas inrural America. We earn about one-thirdas much as the rest of America. Thatmeans we have less money for shelter,less money for clothes, less money forhealth care. Yet, through this bill, thatmeans we will be threatened in termsof our senior citizens. By the way,there are more senior citizens living, inproportion to our population, in ruralareas than anywhere else, so we willhave to take care of the sick.

Tell me, how, through this bill, do werespond. This bill is a disaster forAmerica, but it is far more harmful tothose who live in rural America. Forthose of our community who wouldlike to have water, sewer, and indus-trial development, again, no funds forhousing, very little funds for water andsewer. Those funds have been cut. I re-mind Members, in the Committee onAgriculture itself both Republicans andDemocrats voted for an amendment tothe freedom-to-farm bill to extend atleast $800 million more so small com-munities could have water and sewer.Did I find it when I looked in the bill?No, it was deleted. This is a disaster.We should vote against this bill.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Florida [Mr. SHAW].

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I had not planned tospeak in this part of the debate, but Ihave been sitting in my office listeningto the debate, and sitting here on thefloor listening to it. I have heard somuch about this Republican tax in-crease. What this side has been talkingabout is the cuts in the earned incometax credit. The earned income tax cred-it started in 1975. It started out as a $2billion a year program. It now hasgrown to $20 billion a year. That is a1,000 percent increase.

Is the Republican plan cutting it? No,we are not cutting it. I have a graphnext to me that I think very graphi-

cally depicts, in picture form, somaybe those who have been debatingcan understand it. The red bars, as wesee, starting in the year 1996, are theRepublican proposal. The blue showswhat existing law is, and what existinglaw would be if the present spendinglevels were to remain in place. As wecan clearly see, in each year where wesee the red bars, that is the Republicanplan, the spending levels are substan-tially over 1995 and continue to esca-late. As a matter of fact, it escalatesout to $27 billion.

People might say ‘‘Where are the sav-ings coming from?’’ The savings arecoming from people who do not havechildren. We feel that the earned in-come tax credit was meant, really, tohelp people out that are trying to raisefamilies. The question is, of the peoplethat have children, were any of themcut. Yes, some of them were cut. Thatwas at the highest level of income. Theones going into the workplace, the onesthat are becoming first-time employed,they are not all affected by what theDemocrats call this huge cut.

The argument has been going on onthis side of the aisle to say ‘‘This is atax increase.’’ Let me tell the Membersthat is what is wrong with this countrytoday, that type of mentality. Eighty-five percent of the money sent out byUncle Sam as an earned income taxcredit is an outlay, 85 percent of it.That means only 15 percent is actuallya refund in taxes.

If we look at the whole reconciliationbill we will also find something else inthere that people who are taxpayersare getting. That is a $500 credit forchildren. The people that are losing theearned income tax credit at the higherend of the scale, they are going to re-ceive a tax credit. It comes out in thewash, and it is just, really, about thesame. The only people that are goingto actually lose this are the single tax-payers that do not have children, thatare not raising families.

I tell the Members, with the type ofmentality and the type of argumentthat has been going on in this Chambertoday, it is no wonder that we areswimming in red ink. This is irrespon-sible accounting and it is irresponsibledebate.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 30 seconds to our distinguishedcolleague, the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Ms. DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, Iwould just like to say to my colleaguethat if it was not a tax increase, thenwhy did he need a budget waiver forthis bill?

Let me just say that what they havedone here with the earned income taxcredit, it is $23.3 billion in taxes of low-income working families. They aregoing to raise the taxes of 14.2 millionfamilies who make less than $28,000 in1996, and the charts can say whateverthey want, that is an absolute fact.Take the words of Jack Kemp, who wasappalled at what you are doing in

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10895October 26, 1995terms of cutting the earned income taxcredit.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to our distinguishedcolleague, the gentleman from Texas[Mr. STENHOLM].

Mr. STENHOLM. The first thing Iwant to do, Mr. Chairman, is make thisgeneral observation, that are we nottruly blessed to live in a country thathas the most abundant food supply, thebest quality of food, the safest foodsupply, at the lowest cost of any othercountry in the world?

From that point I make another ob-servation. Here we are, I thought aboutto discuss one of the most importantthings for agriculture in the UnitedStates in the budget, and we are talk-ing EITC on this side, and no one is dis-cussing agriculture. That has been ourproblem all year on agriculture. Wehave ideology running it on this side,and some of us on this side would liketo deal with technology. We would liketo talk about how we make certainthings work. Instead, we are still de-bating freedom to farm. That is in thebudget. Where is someone over here todefend freedom to farm? Where issomeone on this side who is prepared tostand up and say the Freedom to FarmAct is the way we ought to go? No oneis yet, and I am sure there will besomeone soon.

This has been the point we have beentrying to make all year, not one singleminute of hearings have been held onthe agricultural sector freedom tofarm, which is in the budget today. Asimple question, a simple statement.Basically what we are saying, weshould not unilaterally disarm ourfarmers in the international market-place with trade, GATT, NAFTA, all ofthe things that are going on, when therest of the world is continuing to sub-sidize farmers.

What do we hear from the other side?Freedom to farm, freedom to farm,freedom to go broke. Somehow, someway, people believe that we can haveour farmers competing with the Euro-pean Economic Community that are in-creasing their subsidies. That is the an-swer we hear in this wonderful budgetcoming from this side of the aisle. Thatis the thing we have wanted to see de-bated and discussed time and timeagain.

For the first time in years, if not his-tory, we have a farm bill in this billthat nobody seems prepared to defend.No one has seen fit even to have hear-ings. Yet, here we are today, unilater-ally disarming, at least from the ma-jority budget. Support the coalitionbudget, the best alternative.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reservethe balance of my time, given that weare ahead in time.


Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gen-tleman discontinuing his presentation,inasmuch as it is totally unrelated towhat we are speaking about on thisside, agriculture.

Again, I protest the process. On thatside they have legislation that was notapproved by the committee, which is,in my years here, in the history of thisCongress, basically the first time thatthat has been done. I am terribly em-barrassed, one, and upset and frus-trated that this process has gone on.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from California [Mr.DOOLEY].

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we haveheard why there are good reasons forsenior citizens to be very concernedabout this reconciliation bill. We haveheard very good reasons on why theworking poor ought to feel threatenedby the passage of this reconciliationbill. I am here to explain why farmersthroughout this country, in particulardairy farmers, should be very, veryconcerned about the prospects of whatis included in this bill.

The dairy title in this reconciliationbill, if it was instituted, would requirethe immediate deregulation of ourdairy industry. It would eliminate anytype of dairy policy that has guidedthis country for the last 60 years, thathas ensured stability of prices through-out this country. They would eliminatethat overnight, which would ensurethat we would have thousands of dairyfarmers throughout this country beingdriven into bankruptcy.

Every economist that has analyzedthe deregulation plan has come to theconclusion that it would result in atleast a 15-percent decline in prices, anddairy farmers cannot withstand that.This policy is also one which is notconsistent with Republican philosophy,as far as I can tell, because the Repub-lican proposals for dairy farmers inthis, with their deregulation, they arewilling to obligate taxpayers of thiscountry to start writing checks todairy farmers.

In fact, the provisions of this dairytitle would allow a dairy farmer todayto sell his herd in the next month, andtaxpayers for the next 7 years would berequired to write them a check, even ifthey were not milking another cow forthe next 7 years. In fact, a dairy farmerin my area with a 1,000 cow herd wouldbe eligible under this dairy programthat the Republicans are promoting fora $200,000 check next year, a $200,000check coming from the taxpayers ofthis country.

The Republicans campaigned on aContract With America. They cam-paigned that they were going to dogood things. They convinced some oftheir constituencies they were going todo good things, but this contract thatthe Republicans are signing for thetaxpayers on behalf of the dairy farm-ers in this country is obligating themto a check that they are going to writethat they cannot afford. It is bad pol-icy and we ought to defeat this bill.

b 1430

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. LAUGHLIN], a very valued memberof our conference.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, pas-sage of the 7-Year Balanced BudgetReconciliation Act demonstrates to theAmerican people that the new Repub-lican majority will deliver on its prom-ises and end business as usual in Con-gress.

This reconciliation package providesfor a balanced budget by the year 2002.With this proposal, we will balance thebudget while allowing the citizens ofthis country to keep more of theirhard-earned money. With this rec-onciliation package, we are telling thehard-working citizens of this countrythat they, not the Federal Govern-ment, can and should decide wheretheir money is spent.

This package marks the beginning ofa shift toward the goals and decisionsof the individual, and an end to theburdensome, intrusive, bureaucraticagencies like the IRS.

Democrats will say that we cannotafford to give hard-working Americansa tax break while balancing the budget.With this plan, we will prove that wecan and that we will. Provisions suchas a reduction in the capital gains taxwill mean more jobs and economicgrowth. This is what the American peo-ple have asked for, and this is what weare delivering.

The American people understand theimportance of balancing the Federalbudget. They understand that Repub-licans have offered the solution, andthat Democrats have offered scare tac-tics. We need to pass the BalancedBudget Reconciliation Act today forour children and grandchildren.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 15 seconds to our distinguishedcolleague from North Carolina [Mrs.CLAYTON].

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to ask the last speaker fromTexas if he realizes that people fromTexas, through this bill, at least, willlose $4.3 billion in Medicare for his sen-ior citizens. That is a 20-percent cut forthe citizens of his district.


Mr. Chairman, I would like to askthe previous speaker if he realizes thatthis legislation will reduce by half therice-growing area of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 21⁄2 minutes tothe distinguished gentleman fromNorth Carolina [Mr. ROSE].

(Mr. ROSE asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, the Repub-lican revolution has just rolled overrural America and left the familyfarmer in the tire tread marks. Thedrastic changes to farm commodityprograms being forced upon familyfarmers by this bill that we will voteon today are unprecedented in their se-verity and in their lack of judiciousconsideration by the House Committeeon Agriculture.

The budget cuts envisioned for ruralAmerica by the Republican leadership

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10896 October 26, 1995have not had a single day of hearings,have not been adequately debated, havenot been approved by the House Com-mittee on Agriculture. The chairmanof the Committee on Agriculture hasspent more time discussing the Repub-lican Freedom to Farm Act with theeditorial boards of the Wall StreetJournal and the New York Times thanhe has with his Democratic and Repub-lican colleagues on the House Commit-tee on Agriculture.

Even with the ringing endorsementsof the Wall Street Journal and cor-porate executives of well-known ruralcenters like New York, Chicago, andSan Francisco, the Republican farmbill failed the House Committee on Ag-riculture. We voted it down in a bipar-tisan vote. After meeting strong bipar-tisan resistance, the leadership cir-cumvented the traditional committeeprocess and has inserted Freedom toFarm in the Republican budget.

Now, I would say to my colleagues,this is being told to the Americanfarmer as a great visionary piece ofwork. However, we have not seen onesingle visionary on the Republican sidehere today talking to you about howgreat Freedom to Farm is. What is thematter, brothers and sisters? If it is sowonderful, why are you not out hereextolling the virtues of Freedom toFarm?

I have a letter here to the Speakersigned by about 15 Republican Membersof this body to the Speaker, and itsays:

The Senate is bringing us a workable pack-age of agricultural budget savings that wecan all live with. Why not come to an agree-ment on an approach that achieves the budg-et target and avoids a disastrous vote forrural Republicans?

Brothers and sisters, my colleagues,do not do Freedom to Farm. We havedone enough to rural America. This isthe last straw.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas,Mr. SAM JOHNSON, a gentleman whohad much time in Vietnam to thinkabout how much he cares about ourcountry and its children.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr.Chairman, this morning I saw a bump-er sticker that was very appropriatefor today. It read, ‘‘Hey, Congress, doyour job, balance the budget.’’

I think today America is closelywatching this debate to see if Congressis finally going to live up to its prom-ise of balancing our Nation’s budget,and that includes agriculture too, I sayto the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DELA GARZA]. America has heard theDemocrats’ scare tactics, the rhetoric,and the empty promises before, andthey are fed up with it.

Mr. Chairman, it is the Democrats’tax and spend policy of the last 40years that has driven this country intothe financial crisis that we are facingtoday. I am proud to say that the Re-publicans are ready to act now and dowhat Americans elected us to do, andthat is, balance the budget. We are

going to send the President a plan thatcuts spending by $894 billion, and forthe first time in 26 years, balancesAmerica’s checkbook.

This bill eliminates hundreds ofwasteful government programs, endswelfare as we know it, protects, pre-serves, and strengthens Medicare, re-turns power to the States, and providesmuch-needed tax relief to hard-work-ing Americans.

Mr. Chairman, the President says hewill veto this historic document. If hedoes not have the leadership or thecourage to balance the budget, lowertaxes, and secure a safe future for ourchildren, just remember, that for eachday after a veto he will be personallyresponsible for adding millions of dol-lars to the national debt.

So if you are for less taxes, less gov-ernment, and a balanced budget, yourvote for this budget will create morejobs, more opportunity, and more pros-perity for our Nation. A vote for thisplan is a vote for the future of Amer-ica.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’stime has expired.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 5 seconds to say to thegentleman from Texas, Mr. SAM JOHN-SON, we have a plan that balances thebudget. We have a plan that balancesthe budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as hemay consume to the distinguished gen-tleman from Alabama [Mr. BEVILL].

(Mr. BEVILL asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition tothis budget plan. I will vote against it and Iwish I could vote against it twice. This bill willcreate more suffering for senior citizens andchildren than any legislation ever passed byCongress. If it passes, I strongly urge thePresident to veto it.

This bill severely cuts Medicare, requiringsenior citizens to pay more for their healthcare needs. It jeopardizes their choice of doc-tors, the quality of care they receive and theirability to pay for it. It eliminates Federal stand-ards for nursing homes.

This bill severely cuts Medicaid, imposing atremendous burden on States to meet theneeds of poor children. It eliminates theSchool Lunch Program, replacing it with ablock grant that will not cover all needy chil-dren when poverty increases.

This bill destroys work incentives for thou-sands of low-income working families trying tostay off welfare. It cuts the earned income taxcredit, designed to help the working poor,while cutting taxes for the nation’s wealthiestpeople.

In fact, this budget plan favors the big cor-porations, the high-income people and thespecial interests at the expense of those whocan least afford it.

I favor reducing the size of the Federal Gov-ernment. I am a long-time co-author of a con-stitutional amendment to force a balancedFederal budget. And, I think we can do a bet-

ter job of enforcing laws already on the booksto cut waste, fraud, and abuse in governmentprograms.

But, I will never support legislation thatseeks to balance the budget on the backs ofsenior citizens and children.

This is the worse piece of legislation I haveever seen and I strongly urge my colleaguesto do the right thing and vote against it.

(Mr. DE LA GARZA asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, today theHouse will consider a substitute to the Ging-rich budget bill. This substitute contains agri-culture provisions that will reduce the deficit$4.6 billion over 7 years. These are the provi-sions that were considered by the Committeeon Agriculture and failed on a 22 to 27 vote.In spite of the fact that they were desirablepolicy, they did not meet the committee’s rec-onciliation obligation. Many of my colleaguesacross the aisle regretted that they could notsupport it because it did not meet the require-ments of the budget resolution to balance thebudget by 2002.

Today, my friends, you can now support re-ductions of $4.6 billion for agriculture, not$13.4 billion in cuts—three times that size,and reap the benefit of a balanced budget be-cause the substitute also balances the budgetby 2002.

Yesterday, I heard my good friend ChairmanROBERTS testify before the Rules Committeewhat his freedom to farm provisions would doas part of the Gingrich plan.

Chairman ROBERTS said American farmerswould pay $15 billion less in interest expensesbecause of a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman,the substitute will reduce the same $15 billionin interest expenses for American farmers be-cause the substitute also balances the budget.

Chairman ROBERTS said American farmerswill have increased planting flexibility becauseof freedom to farm in the Gingrich budgetplan. Mr. Chairman, American farmers willalso have increased planting flexibility in thesubstitute budget plan.

Chairman ROBERTS said that freedom tofarm will lock up the baseline for farmers sothat when we will have to pass more cuts incoming years, and he said not to fool our-selves—we will have more deficit reductionbills just like this one, that farm spending willbe protected. Mr. Chairman, I do not knowwhy there will be more reconciliation, perhapsthe tax cuts are too high or the spending cutsare not real, but if you vote for the substitute,there will be no need for future reconciliationbecause it will balance the budget.

Chairman ROBERTS said that freedom tofarm was a market-oriented plan. Mr. Chair-man, unless, by market-oriented, ChairmanROBERTS means the unimpeded opportunity tolose your shirt, the substitute bill is also mar-ket-oriented. Farmers will respond to marketprices in their planting and marketing deci-sions.

But when farm prices are driven down bylarge supplies, poor economic growth, or anovervalued currency, as happened in the past,the substitute’s farm program will increasepayments to farmers to partially offset thosemarket losses. And when prices are high, gov-ernment payments will decline or cease alto-gether, reducing benefits when farmers do not

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10897October 26, 1995need them. Under freedom to farm, farmerswill receive the same $6 billion in 1996, for in-stance, whether prices are low-baseline levels,or above, as USDA has recently projectedthem, and requiring only $2.8 billion in pay-ments to farmers.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to our distinguished col-league from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, a cutephrase can be deceptive. This is cer-tainly the case with the mislabeledfarm portion of this massive bill. Thefarmers in my area call it the FarmFailure Act of 1995. It is designed tostabilize land values, not commodityprices. It benefits landowners far morethan farmers. It mandates automaticpayments regardless of crop prices. Itdiscredits the farm programs.

In fact, it mandates these paymentseven if the prices are at record highs.In this time of huge deficits, it is esti-mated that it will cost $10 billion morethan a simple continuation of presentprograms. We not only balance thebudget on the backs of farmers, we arecutting them off at the knees.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that all of usagree that we should balance the budg-et in 10 years. We should balance it in5 years. We have a plan that would bal-ance the budget in 7 years, and itwould do so without the harsh, dra-matic impact on agriculture that thisbill that the Republican majority pro-poses would impose.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Nevada[Mr. ENSIGN], another distinguishedmember of the Committee on Ways andMeans.

(Mr. ENSIGN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, there is no easy wayto do what Congress is about to do. Ifit was easy to do, previous Congresseswould have done that. The nationaldebt we are passing on to our children,including my 3-year-old son, Trevor,and his little sister who will be born ina little over a month, is nothing shortof immoral. It is immoral to do to poorchildren, middle-class children andwealthy children, because if nothing isdone, poor children will never get to bemiddle class or wealthy.

This bill is not only pro family be-cause it begins to lift the debt burdenfrom our children and grandchildren,but there are many other provisions onwhich I will touch on just a few.

First of all, this bill addresses themarriage penalty. There is a $500 perchild tax credit. There is a $500 elderlycare tax credit. There is also an adop-tion tax credit, and there is also estatetax relief so family-owned businessessuch as family-owned farms can sur-vive without having to sell off all oftheir assets so they can send thatmoney back here to Washington. Mr.Chairman, it is bad enough that citi-zens pay taxes all of their lives, butthen when they die, they have to paytaxes again.

This debate is largely about whoshould spend the people’s money.Should families have more of themoney they earn to spend at their dis-cretion in the manner best suited totheir situation, or should the FederalGovernment, which already has dem-onstrated all too well the inefficientway it spends money. Should the Fed-eral Government be increasingly letinto our pocketbook to waste our taxdollars?

I believe that the words tax cuts arenot bad words. This is your money,America. Do you not deserve a littlemore of it back? Is everyone satisfiedwith the bang that they are getting fortheir buck?

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 15 seconds to the gentlewomanfrom North Carolina [Mrs. CLAYTON].

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring tothe attention of our colleagues that ap-proximately 14 of our Republican col-leagues addressed a letter to theSpeaker where they call the proposal,welfare for the Freedom to Farm bill.They said they would rather have aSenate version than the version here.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 15 seconds to the gentleman fromMississippi [Mr. TAYLOR].

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman foryielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pointout to my colleague that just spokethat the chairman of the Committee onthe Budget, Mr. KASICH just informedthis body that the $500 tax credit is notin this bill.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromNorth Dakota [Mr. POMEROY].

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, thisportion of the budget represents thedeepest cuts and most drastic changesproposed in agriculture in decades. Youwould have thought that the Freedomto Farm Act might have warrantedvery thorough consideration. In fact, itdid not have a single hearing in theCommittee on Agriculture.

Basically, House leaders told ruralAmerica, this is what we are going todo, now sit down, shut up, and take it.But we did not take it in the HouseCommittee on Agriculture. We de-feated the proposal. However, Houseleaders had the audacity to move thisinto the budget in spite of the HouseCommittee on Agriculture rejection.Shame on all of you who have partici-pated in such a vicious charade forrural America.

I am not surprised that for most ofthis debate there is not a single Repub-lican House Committee on Agriculturemember here to defend what has beendone.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like tothank the gentleman from North Da-kota [Mr. POMEROY] for his help on thespousal impoverishment, which wasvery fine help. We appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 31⁄2 minutes tothe distinguished gentleman from Cali-fornia [Mr. THOMAS] of the Health Sub-committee from the Committee onWays and Means.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

b 1445

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to do istry to refocus our attention away fromperhaps the more rancorous partisanaspects and frankly look at a little bitlonger term perspective.

Because I am here representing twoindividuals who are not here in boththe House and the Senate. SenatorBentsen is no longer with us, and J.J.Pickle is no longer with us. But for anumber of years, Senator Bentsenjoined with Senator ROTH and I joinedwith J.J. Pickle to focus on what wecall superIRA accounts, the idea thatindividuals would have greater controlover that money, which was theirs,which had been put away.

We were unsuccessful for a number ofyears, but I am pleased to announcethat in this particular reconciliationbill a couple of the key points thatSenator Bentsen, Senator ROTH, JakePickle, and I fought for, for a numberof years, are present.

Today, if you withdraw from yourIRA to spend on medical expenses foryourself prior to the 591⁄2 year, you notonly have to pay taxes on the moneyyou withdrew from your own savings,you also have to pay a 10-percent pen-alty. That just does not make anysense. What we do today is say, if it isfor medical expenses, you do not haveto pay and you do not have to pay thepenalty.

I might add that President Clinton’s1996 budget also includes this provi-sion; and I might say that H.R. 11,which was passed by this House and un-fortunately vetoed by President Bushtwo Congresses ago, contained thatprovision as well. So it is just kind ofa nice culmination of a number of bi-partisan projects that come togethertoday in this particular bill.

In addition, the long-term care insur-ance provision. You do not now get todeduct the cost of long-term care in-surance as part of your medical ex-penses. This has been a project that wehave worked on bipartisan for a long,long time. As a matter of fact, Presi-dent Clinton has this in his 1996 budgetas well. We think it is a good idea, andwe included it in this reconciliationpackage.

In addition to that, we are supposedto talk about taking care of your own.Today, if you have a senior or an elder-ly in your home, your parent, your rel-ative, you do not get any tax creditwhatsoever for the out-of-pocket costsin taking care of that individual. Inthis reconciliation bill, you get creditfor those expenses.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10898 October 26, 1995In addition to that, when we exam-

ined the medical savings accounts andthose who were uninsured, we thoughtthat those young people who are work-ing above the poverty level but do notneed all of that third-party first-dollarcoverage of comprehensive medicalcare really did not have a product inthe marketplace that fit their needs.This reconciliation bill contains a med-ical savings account provision foryoung people who can shape their in-surance needs to what they need at anaffordable cost.

In addition to that, you have an or-phan tax credit that has been workedon on a bipartisan basis for years. Ithad lapsed. We had not been able torenew it. It is for those drugs that goto Tourette’s disease, go to Hunting-ton’s disease, but there simply is not abroad enough base to pay for them.That is in this bill.

There are a number of provisionsthat for a number of years on a biparti-san basis we have tried to move for-ward. I just thought people shouldknow in the middle of this partisanrancor that there are a number of pro-visions that colleagues here today havevoted for and colleagues who have beenhere in the past have voted for, and itis a really good provision.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 15 seconds to the gentlewomanfrom Florida [Mrs. THURMAN].

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, justthis point. Do we all know that 14 Re-publicans wrote Speaker GINGRICH say-ing this bill is a disastrous vote forrural Republicans?

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank all the members thatworked with us in the Committee onAgriculture. I am saddened by the factthat the legislation which appears inthe reconciliation is not the product ofthe Committee on Agriculture. I amconcerned about that.

But the Stenholm proposal balancesthe budget in 5 years. The Committeeon Agriculture has met its commit-ment. We have reduced over $50 billionin the past 10 years. No one can pointthe finger at the Committee on Agri-culture that we have not done ourshare.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the previousunanimous-consent agreement, thegentleman from Michigan [Mr. DIN-GELL] will control the remaining 30minutes for the minority.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KA-SICH] has 273⁄4 minutes remaining.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, doesthe majority not want to use its time?It is such a great bill they have got. Iwould be delighted to defer to listen tothat.

Mr. SHAYS. If I heard the gentlemancorrectly, Mr. Chairman, we have 27minutes and this gentleman has 30minutes remaining. Is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we re-

serve the balance of our time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, Iwould observe that it is usually thepractice for the majority to set forthwhat a great piece of legislation this is.I am waiting for somebody over thereto tell me what a great piece of legisla-tion this is.

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy topoint out to the gentleman, but we re-serve the balance of our time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 21⁄2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand thereluctance of my Republican col-leagues to tell us what a great bill it isbecause, quite frankly, this is one ofthe worst pieces of legislation I haveever seen in the 40 years I have servedin this body. The bill includes bothMedicare and Medicaid cuts and taxbreaks.

Our Republican colleagues said thatthey were not tying the two together.Well, they are tying them together inthis bill. The poor and the aged aregoing to understand that the contribu-tions that they are making of about$500 billion is being made so that a taxcut can be given to the wealthiestAmericans. That is finally proven inthis piece of legislation.

The pernicious approach violates thecontract we have with seniors whohave paid for their Medicare benefits.It means seniors will pay more and getless choice of doctors, poor quality labtests, and nursing homes that do notmeet common standards of decency.

By separating action on Medicarefrom the rest of reconciliation, Repub-licans tried to convince us that $270billion in Medicare cuts do not pay for$245 billion in tax breaks for the rich.But Americans can perform the simplemath required. They know when some-one is pulling the wool over their eyes.

The bill also destroys Medicaid.Under the mantra of State’s rights, Re-publicans are pulling the safety net outfrom under middle class families, poorchildren, women, seniors, and the dis-abled—the most vulnerable of Ameri-cans. Up until last night, the Repub-lican bill arbitrarily cut $182 billionfrom Medicaid. Now they say they havefixed it by cutting only $170 billion.But this midnight deal does not changethe fact that this bill abdicates theFederal Government’s role in Medicaid,reduces health care for the most needy,and invites abuse by States. It takesaway vitally important guaranteesunder current law: protection fromhaving to sell the family home or farmto pay for a loved one’s nursing homecare; guaranteeing coverage for seniorswith Alzheimer’s; setting minimumstandards of safety, cleanliness, and de-cency for nursing homes; and guaran-teeing health care for children andpregnant women.

I and other Members tried to correctone of the most glaring defects in thebill by offering an amendment on be-half of Mr. GINGRICH. In debate lastweek, the Speaker obviously was underthe misimpression that his newMediGrant Program does what currentlaw guarantees—covering the cost of

Medicare premiums for seniors underthe poverty line. In fact, this bill re-peals what current law provides. Ouramendment would have restored provi-sions the Speaker erroneously relied onand guarantee that the poorest of sen-iors have Medicare coverage. But theRules Committee gagged us fromamending the bill so that it will dowhat the Speaker says it does.

I also want to point out the devastating im-pact that this bill has on health care for veter-ans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs saysthat the harsh spending caps in the Repub-lican plan will require 41 veterans hospitals toclose their doors. As a result, more than 1 mil-lion veterans will be denied health care by2002. I do not share the misguided view of mycolleagues on the other side of the aisle thatthe best way for veterans to stay healthy isnot to get sick.

This bill walks away from responsible gov-ernment to help people in need in favor of lin-ing the pockets of the wealthiest Americanswith unneeded tax cuts. In addition to healthcare cuts, this bill slashes education, job train-ing, and other programs upon which we em-power people to help themselves.

Most Americans will get nothing, or paymore under the GOP tax break. The smallpercentage of the tax cuts that will go to fami-lies earning less than $50,000 a year will bemore than offset by spending cuts. These fam-ilies stand to lose $648 a year or more underthe GOP plan. Those earning more than$350,000—the richest 1 percent—will get$14,050 a year for the tax cut. I find it curiousthat my Republican colleagues, who criticizethe President for not cutting middle classtaxes enough, are rushing to raise taxes onmany low income families. I must confess Iam not surprised, however, that they wouldfollow through on their threats to slash pro-grams vital to the financial security of workingAmericans.

Finally, I must object to the cavalier mannerin which the Republican leadership has in-cluded massive changes in farm programs.The so-called freedom-to-farm proposal wasfound to be so objectionable that the HouseAgriculture Committee failed to get it out ofcommittee. On an issue as vital as our Na-tion’s food security, this bill shreds responsiblelegislating for partisan game playing andmakes rural Americans the pawns.

This is not the way to legislate, and it is adangerous way to govern.

Mr. Chairman, this is the biggest andthe most important bill to be consid-ered by the House this year. The cutsare too large. It hurts terribly thehealth care coverage of millions ofAmericans.

I strongly oppose the bill. I now lookforward to hearing from my Republicancolleagues about what a great piece oflegislation this is.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I say the reason thegentleman has not heard from us is hehas not been on the floor listening.

Just taking Medicare, for instance.We have not increased co-payments; wehave not increased deductibles. The

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10899October 26, 1995premium stays the same at 31.5 per-cent. No one has to leave their fee-for-service system. If they want to, theycan go. If they go into a private care,every month they can come back intotheir system.

What the gentleman does not wantpeople to know is that we are going tospend 73 percent more, over $600 billionmore in the next 7 years than we did inthe last 7 years; what the gentlemandoes not want people to know is in the7th year we are spending 50 percentmore than we do today on Medicare;and what the gentleman does not wantpeople to know is that the per bene-ficiary goes from $4,800 to $6,700.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from Ohio [Mr.PORTMAN].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Connecticutfor yielding me the time, and I com-mend him for his unwavering supportover the years for fiscal sanity and saythat I am very proud to stand up heretoday and support this bill that leadsus to the first balanced budget in 26years.

But I also want to talk about someother things. As the gentleman fromMichigan says, many of us are eager totalk about some of the good things inthis bill beyond the fact that we cometo the first balanced budget in 26 years,which is of paramount importance.

This afternoon, I want to highlight afew of the small business incentives inthis package that go beyond that criti-cal task of getting spending under con-trol but will encourage saving and jobcreation to lead to real long-term eco-nomic growth.

Let me give a good example. It is nottoo glamorous, but it is extremely im-portant to small businesses, to workersand employers in small businessesaround this country. It is the long-overdue, comprehensive simplificationof our pension laws in this country.And it is in this bill.

These changes which the gentlemanfrom Maryland [Mr. CARDIN] and otherson both sides of the aisle have beenworking on will make it easier and lessexpensive for businesses to both estab-lish plans and to maintain pensionplans, thus encouraging and enablingpeople to save, an important publicpolicy goal in its own right, and alsowill encourage people to plan and totake responsibility for their futuresand for their retirement.

Pension law is a great example of anarea where Congress, by meddling, hashurt workers and employers who aretrying to do the right thing. Quite sim-ply, as the rules and regulations havemultiplied in this area, fewer and feweremployers are able to offer pensionplans. It has gotten to the point wheretoday only 20 percent of those employ-ers with less than 25 employees offerany kind of pension plan at all. It is nosurprise that our savings rate is amongthe lowest, if not the lowest, in the in-dustrialized countries.

Another example of rules that areoutdated, overly complex and impede

job creation are the subchapter S cor-poration rules and regulations. Thatincludes most of the small and family-owned businesses in America. The sub-S changes that we have made, and theyare in this bill, will help companiesgrow and flourish, create new jobs andwill keep family businesses family-owned.

The point I want to emphasize is thatthe pension, subchapter S and other re-forms in this legislation are going tostimulate national investment and sav-ings, foster business growth, and theyare good for America, and they are allin this bill.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15seconds to myself to point out to thegentleman from Ohio, who just spokeabout the bill, that Ohio will lose $4.1billion in health care for the elderlyand the disabled. Most of this is innursing home care which will have tobe paid for by their hard-working mid-dle-class families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes tothe distinguished gentleman from Cali-fornia [Mr. WAXMAN].

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, thereare many, many reasons to oppose thislegislation: It savages health and edu-cation programs; it gives tax breaks tothe wealthy at the same time it takesthe earned-income tax credit awayfrom people who need it; it containssome outrageous assaults on some ofour most treasured environmental as-sets.

Under the cover of balancing thebudget, this bill is a disaster for Amer-ican people, full of special interestgiveaways and policies that will do ir-reparable harm to the health and well-being of America’s working families,children and seniors. Nowhere is thateffect more obvious than in the actionstaken to slash and undermine the Med-icare and Medicaid Programs.

The so-called Medicare reform of Mr.GINGRICH is nothing less than an at-tempt to destroy Medicare as we knowit, and take away from our seniors theability to stay in a strong and viableMedicare Program where they canchoose their own doctor and be pro-tected against having to pay that doc-tor a lot of extra dollars out of theirown pocket.

The Gingrich Medicare reform hikesthe Medicare premium dramatically,and takes away the guarantee for sen-iors struggling to live on incomesbelow poverty that Medicaid will paytheir Medicare part B premium andcost-sharing. Despite the personal as-surances of Speaker GINGRICH to thisHouse last week, that help that seniorshave now is not there.

If there is any doubt about what theagenda is here, we need to look no fur-ther than the statements reported intoday’s Washington Post:

Majority Leader Dole, stating with pridethat in 1995, ‘‘I was there, fighting the fight,voting against Medicare.’’

Speaker Gingrich, bragging to the insurersabout what the Republicans are doing to

Medicare, ‘‘Now, we don’t get rid of it inround one because we don’t think that’s po-litically smart . . .’’.

It is not that he does not think it isa good idea to get rid of Medicare, butit is smart politics to cover up the im-pact in the first round.

I do not think it is smart politics tothink that you can fool the Americanpeople about what is going on here.Democrats are proud to defend Medi-care, not because we think it is smart,but because it is the right thing to do.

With Medicaid, Mr. GINGRICH and hisRepublican colleagues do not evenseem to think they have to put up asmokescreen as they dismantle it.They take away any guarantee of cov-erage for people who need nursinghome care, for severely disabled chil-dren, and adults who have nowhere elseto turn for help, for 18 million poorchildren who have no other source ofhealth care. That is one-quarter of thekids in this country who are about tobe put at risk to join the ranks of theuninsured.

They take billions of Federal dollarsout of the system to provide healthcare for people who have no other op-tions, and they leave States, counties,and cities holding the bag when theyfind that there is not enough money todeal with the problem. They leave theStates with the choice of raising taxesto try to replace Federal revenue, orsimply cutting people off from help.

And they tip the scales toward cut-ting people off. States will soon becompeting with surrounding States ina race to the bottom—afraid to try tokeep an adequate Medicaid Program inplace because too many desperate peo-ple from surrounding areas will try tocome in to get help.

There is more. They do not want topay nursing homes enough to supportthe delivery of decent quality care. Sotheir answer to that problem is to re-peal the nursing home standards.

They undo all the protections of cur-rent law, and hope people will not un-derstand what they are doing. Theyhope this will get through before theyget caught.

Look what they did in terms of pro-tecting the spouse of someone who goesinto a nursing home from ending up inpoverty. First, they repealed all theprotections. Not one Republican votedfor restoring them when we offered anamendment to protect against spousalimpoverishment in committee. Theywere very outspoken that they did notneed or want Federal standards.

Then they started to feel some heatin the press, and even they started tofeel uneasy defending what they haddone. So they changed it—all of a sud-den the amendment all the Republicanshated in committee showed up in theKasich bill. Now they were finally will-ing to say that a State could not im-poverish the spouse.

But there is just one problem—theylet the nursing home itself require the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10900 October 26, 1995spouse or the adult children of the per-son in the nursing home to make thempay extra if they wanted their husbandor wife, father or mother, to get care inthe nursing home. I think we call thatgiving with one hand and taking awaywith the other.

What happened? Once again, whenthe light of day shined on what theywere doing, they reversed course.

Now the rule adds a Bliley amend-ment—one that Mr. BLILEY did not askto be made in order, I might not, untilwe caught them at what they weredoing—that would not let the nursinghome get that extra money. Well good!That is what they should have done inthe first place.

But the fact is they are still tryingto hide the biggest thing of all. Whatthey are hiding is that the spouse whoneeds the nursing home care in thefirst place is not assured of getting it!

People with Alzheimer’s getting cov-erage under Medicaid now: They haveno guarantee they will be covered.

People who could stay at home ifthey had some help: No guarantee ofcoverage.

People who have to have nursinghome care: No guarantee of coverage,and even if they do get it, no guaranteethat it will be in a decent facility.

Even veterans now getting services:No guarantee they will continue to getcoverage.

This is wrong. It is wrong to say tomillions of working families with se-verely disabled children, that theyhave no guarantee of help anymore.

It is wrong to say to families whohave no health insurance coverage fortheir children, that they have no guar-antee of help anymore.

It is wrong to say to low-income sen-iors that they have no guarantee thatwe will help pay their Medicare pre-miums and cost-sharing anymore.

And it is wrong to say to States, andcounties, and cities, it is your problem.We have washed our hands of its.

There are many things that arewrong with this bill. But what is doneto Medicaid alone is enough to voteagainst it. What is done to Medicarealone is also enough to vote against it.

The health and security of America’sseniors and children depend on what wedo here today. Defeat this bill.

b 1500

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Illi-nois [Mr. EWING], the distinguishedchairman of the Subcommittee on RiskManagement and Speciality Crops.

(Mr. EWING asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, ladiesand gentlemen, I have been concerned,listening to the debate here today, thecriticism of the process followed by theCommittee on Agriculture.

In fact, in many ways it was not themajority party’s problem. We wentthrough the process. We debated the is-sues. The Democrats were given an op-

portunity to put forth their substitute,and it failed. We came along with thesubstitute put forth by RepublicanMembers, and it failed, and the oneprogram that had the most votes wasthe one which is in this bill. This pro-gram is the Freedom to Farm Act.

The one that the Democrats voted forcut just as much money from agricul-tural programs as Freedom to Farm.

Let us not lose sight of the big pic-ture. Our prior Congresses have beencutting agricultural spending for pro-ducers and putting it into social pro-grams. We are going to continue thatprocess of phasing out Big Governmentcontrols and regulations on agri-culture, and it is going to go to deficitreduction.

This program is a good program. Itmeets the needs. It is important that itis passed with this bill.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15seconds to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. BROWN].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to point out to the gen-tleman who just spoke, under this billthe State of Illinois will lose $3.5 bil-lion in health care for the elderly anddisabled, mostly nursing home care,which will have to be paid for by hard-working, middle-class families, and hisvote will increase taxes for thousandsof middle-class families at the sametime.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Oregon[Mr. WYDEN].

(Mr. WYDEN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman and col-leagues, I believe that there is a clearconsensus in this body for bipartisanreform of the Medicaid Program, andclearly the States can play a criticalrole in reforming that essential pro-gram.

Five States have been the lead; fiveStates have been a laboratory forchange, and the tragedy today is thatthis bill will turn out the laboratoryfor change in our home State of Or-egon. This bill means that a programthat is serving more than 100,000 low-income people will have to be disman-tled. This means that charity care isgoing to increase. This means our wel-fare rolls are going to increase.

I would note specifically in a letter Ijust received from Jean Thorne, who isour Governor’s assistant on Federalhealth policy, that she believes thatthe level of funding involved in thisbill is going to require the dismantlingof the Oregon health plan. This is atragedy. It is a tragedy for Oregonians.But it is a tragedy for our Nation be-cause we need bipartisan Medicaid re-form, Medicaid reform that stressesprevention, holds down costs throughhealth maintenance organizations, andthis plan does it.

Let us reject this bill. Let us notturn out the lights on the laboratoriesfor health care change in America likein my home State of Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a verystrong, bipartisan consensus in this House tofix Medicaid—and to fix Medicaid in some veryfundamental and tough-minded ways.

And I believe that the State can play a veryimportant role in this matter as our labora-tories for change and innovation.

This bill, unfortunately, turns out the lightson those laboratories for change by eliminat-ing waivers for these experiments in fiveStates including my home State of Oregon.

This is bad medicine for Oregonians, and noremedy for the beleagured Federal taxpayer.

This is the last thing we should be doing. Itis unwise because it will remove health carecoverage from thousands of our fellow citi-zens, it will hog-tag States that already haveundergone significant reforms, and it ultimatelywill cost tax payers far more dollars than youare attempting to save in this reconciliationpackage.

This bill sends us marching backwards,dooming States that have had the politicalguts to reform, back into the bad old days ofpublic welfare programs.

Oregon is one of the States that has leadthe way toward a century Medicaid Program,and our waiver plan has full, bipartisan sup-port within our congressional delegation. It hasthat support because in the last 16 months:Oregon has enrolled 130,000 working poorinto managed care; reduced uncompensated,charity expense at hospitals by 30 percent;and has delivered a Medicaid Program which,per capita, is 10 percent less costly than thenational average.

This bill even with the new provisionsworked out by the speaker last night, doomsthe Oregon health plan.

I have just received a letter from JeanThorne, governor Kitzhaber’s Federal policydirector and the former manager of the state’sMedicaid Program.

Here is what she has to say about themeasure we are voting on, today, with regardto our health plan.

Short-term, she says that while additionalmoneys inserted into this bill last night will al-leviate some of the problems in the first year,we will likely need to take actions limiting theprogram before the end of the 1996 fiscalyear.

After that, according to Thorne’s letter, thepackage will cause the Oregon plan to plum-met as if from a cliff.

She says the 7 year loss from this measure‘‘is still almost $2 billion.’’

It is likely that such a level of funding losswill require us to dismantle the Health Plan.If this were to happen, it would mean thatapproximately 130,000 low-income Oregoni-ans would no longer have Medicaid coverage.These are people who are primarily familieswith children.

My colleagues, and particularly my col-leagues within the Oregon delegation, makeno mistake, this will kill the Oregon health planas we know it.

I suspect, after speaking with State officialsthis morning, that this will force a special ses-sion of our State legislature early next year torevamp the Oregon plan.

This will mean fewer services covered, andfewer Oregonians under health care coverage.

One State official speculated that some-where between 30,000 and 40,000 Oregoni-ans—working poor—will have to be let out oftheir coverage in the next 15 to 20 months.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10901October 26, 1995Mr. Chairman, I should point out that under

this plan we have reduced the number of wel-fare recipient in the State by about 8 percentin the last year. We projected further de-creases of about 12 percent over the next 2years.

That projection, like health care coveragefor some tens of thousands of Oregonians, isnow out the window as well.

We will see our welfare rolls, and our wel-fare costs, grow because of the loss of thiswaiver.

Mr. Chairman, as I said we have worked co-operatively in our delegation to try to get thisissue turned around, and I want to especiallycommend the work of my colleague, JIM BUNN.

But we have no remedy in what is pro-posed, today.

This language is a prescription for higherpublic costs, higher costs to hospitals whichwill be shifted to other consumers, and theloss of decent health coverage for many,many of my fellow Oregonians.

I urge my colleagues to reject this measure.STATE CAPITOL,

Salem, OR, October 26, 1995.To: Congressman Ron Wyden.From: Jean I. Thorne, Federal Policy Coordi-

nator.Subject: Amendment to House Medicaid Bill.

In reviewing the special adjustment madefor Oregon in the House bill, I believe ithelps alleviate the need to take immediateaction to possibly dismantle the OregonHealth Plan, but it does not change the long-term outlook for the Plan.

As I read the language included in the bill,it provides a one-time allotment to Oregonof an additional $155 million in fiscal year1996, but does not change the allotments insubsequent years. The amount of fundingprovided in 1996 basically would equal theamount spent in 1995 plus an inflation factorof 7.24%. We are anticipating approximately9% growth in Oregon’s Medicaid expendi-tures between fiscal years 1995 and 1996, soalthough this additional amount of fundingwill alleviate much of the immediate prob-lem, we will likely need to take actions be-fore the end of the fiscal year to trim backthe Health Plan and other areas of Medicaid,such as long-term care services. By fiscalyear 1997, more drastic actions will be nec-essary, although it is unknown at this pointwhether a special legislative session prior tothe regular 1997 session would be necessary.

Clearly, beginning with 1997 we face thesame problems as in the original House bill.The seven-year anticipated loss with thischange is still almost $2 billion, as opposedto $2.1 billion. It is likely that such a levelof funding loss will require us to dismantlethe Health Plan. If this were to happen, itwould mean that approximately 130,000 low-income Oregonians would no longer haveMedicaid coverage. These are people who areprimarily families with children. Since thebeginning of the Health Plan in February1994, we have increased the number of Orego-nians with Medicaid coverage by almost 50%.We currently have over 75% of all Medicaidenrollees receiving services through prepaidhealth plans. The amount of funds hospitalsspend on charity care has decreased by over30%. Our welfare caseloads have declined by8%, with another 12% decline anticipated inthe current two-year budget period. At thesame time, our spending per beneficiary ismore than 10% below the national average.Our ability to ‘‘squeeze’’ additional savingsout of the program is severely limited. If theOregon Health Plan were to be dismantled,we would face the prospects of actually goingbackwards from the gains we have made—less people covered, less people in managed

care, more costs shifted to other payers andwelfare caseloads increasing.

We deeply appreciate the work of Congress-man Bunn in getting this issue before Con-gress, but we recognize that it is only a firststep. Our hopes are that we can secure an ex-emption for states with operating Section1115 waivers to continue under the fundingterms of the waiver, allowing us to provethat our demonstration programs can im-prove the health of poor persons in a cost-ef-ficient manner.

JOHN A. KITZHABER,Governor.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the distinguished gentlemanfrom Florida [Mr. FOLEY].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am anx-ious to hear the speeches when peoplestop buying treasury bills because ourdebt has grown so large that people areno longer interested in taking the risk.

This bill brings us to reality. It willreduce the cost of real interest pay-ments.

On the farm bill, they say it was donein the dark of night. We had 10,000farmers at 19 field hearings from Cali-fornia to New York to Florida, talkingabout reforming agriculture. Now, onegroup says we have done too much toagriculture and we are hurting ruralAmerica. My God, I live in rural Amer-ica. I respect rural America. Theyasked me, MARK FOLEY, to makechanges in the agriculture policy ofthis Nation.

So I stand here proudly to supportthe Freedom To Farm Act. We willunshackle agriculture. We will allowthem to become productive. We willfeed America’s families. We will saveus tremendous interest costs aroundthis Nation and make our farmersproud to be Americans once again,which they are today.

Let us not hear the rhetoric that thisbill is bad for America, because whenthe final numbers are in, when we saveour children’s future, when we save thebankruptcy of this Nation, when wemake our people proud of this countryonce again, the numbers and the votesand the sentiment of America will bewith us.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15seconds to the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. RUSH].

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to point out to the gentleman whojust spoke that under this bill theState of Florida will lose $5.9 billion inhealth care for the elderly and the dis-abled. Most of this is coming fromnursing home care which would have tobe paid for by hard-working middle-class families.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. BROWN].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,now I get it. Now I understand why theGingrich majority believes this bill isgood for middle-class America.

The gentleman from North Carolina[Mr. HEINEMAN] recently noted thosewith incomes between $300,000 and$750,000 a year are middle class. I get it:The middle class that this reconcili-ation bill will help has an income of$300,000 a year.

The Gingrich plan cuts Medicare togive tax breaks to people making one-half of a million a year. Why? Well,Speaker GINGRICH told an extremistgroup of supporters of his, ‘‘We don’tget rid of Medicare in round one, be-cause we don’t think that would be po-litically smart. We don’t think that isthe right way to go through a transi-tion. We believe it is going to wither onthe vine because we think people arevoluntarily going to leave it.’’

Shame on them, cutting Medicare,trying to destroy Medicare to give atax break to people making one-half ofa million a year.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman I yield 1minute to the distinguished gentlemanfrom Iowa [Mr. LATHAM].

(Mr. LATHAM asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thinkit is interesting when you talk aboutagricultural policy and not havinghearings, we had 19 hearings concern-ing the Freedom to Farm Act and get-ting ideas from farmers themselves.One gentleman who spoke earlier ad-mitted during the committee hearing,on the Democrat side, that he hadnever attended any of these hearings.

I think it is kind of interesting, I amsure he must have been listening to bu-reaucrats here in Washington, but thething they told, the farmers told us,they want flexibility, they want a safe-ty net, and they want relief from regu-lations that are strangling agriculturetoday.

One important thing to remember,when we actually get to a balancedbudget, it is going to lower interestcosts by 1.2 to 2 percent, and when youlook at agriculture that is borrowing$141 billion a year, over 7 years, thatmore than makes up for any reductionin farm spending, and under the billthat is in our reconciliation act, thereis more disposable net farm incomethan even existing law would be.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentlewoman from Illi-nois [Mrs. COLLINS].

(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend her remarks.)

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chair-man, I would like to point out that thegentleman who just spoke, under thisbill, the State of Iowa will lose $590million in health care for the elderlyand disabled, and most of this is nurs-ing home care which will have to bepaid for by their hard-working middle-class families.

Mr. Chairman, maybe Speaker GING-RICH is planning to save his book royal-ties to pay for his hospital, doctor, andnursing home bill if he ever needs it,but most older Americans don’t havethat luxury.

This bill delivers a knock-out punchto middle-income families, and I don’tmean those middle-income families de-fined by Congressman HEINEMAN as

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10902 October 26, 1995making $300,000 to $750,000 a year. Notonly does it cut student loans theirchildren will need for college, but it isalso going to force them to pay formuch of the health care their parentsnow receive under Medicare and Medic-aid. Talk about taking the care out ofhealth care; that’s a double whammy.

BOB DOLE yesterday proudly pro-claimed that he voted against Medicarewhen it was created in 1965 because,and I quote, ‘‘we knew it wouldn’twork.’’

Well Senator, let me tell you: Youcouldn’t be more wrong—Medicareworks. When Medicare was signed intolaw by President Johnson, nearly 30percent of senior citizens lived belowthe poverty line and half of all seniorcitizens had no health insurance.Today barely 12 percent live in povertyand an astounding 99.1 percent havehealth insurance coverage.

The Republican leadership sure has aknack for revising history.

The Gingrich Medicare plan will force the el-derly and their children to pick up the tab for$270 billion in payments for doctors, hospitals,medical equipment such as wheel chairs, anddrugs that Medicare now covers. Adding insultto injury, it is the elderly and their middle-classsons and daughters who will not benefit fromthe huge tax break these health care cuts areintended to give to people earning more than$100,000 a year.

In fact, while the Republican tax plan givesa $14,000 tax break to a wealthy family withan income over $350,000, it actually raisestaxes by more than $600 for middle-incomefamilies with incomes below $50,000.

Just listen to what the Speaker wants totake away from elderly and middle-classAmericans to pay for his tax cut.

First, Speaker GINGRICH will cause hospitalsin the Chicago metropolitan area to lose morethan $2.8 billion. The city of Chicago, alone,will lose $1.3 billion; almost half that amount,$699 million, will be lost by the 11 hospitals inmy congressional district.

Cuts of this magnitude will force these hos-pitals to sharply reduce the number of patientsthey can serve.

If the Speaker were on the floor, I’d say tohim: Mr. Speaker, is your tax break for thewealthy worth the risk that thousands in theChicago metropolitan area may be denied ahospital bed?

Second, under the Speaker’s Medicare bill,each of Illinois’ 1.6 million Medicare recipientswill see their health care costs rise by at least$3.500.

Mr. Chairman, where is the fairness in aproposal that pays for a $14,000 tax break forthe wealthy by forcing the elderly to pay$3,500 more than they currently pay for healthcare?

Third, Mr. GINGRICH’s Medicaid proposal willlead to the termination of nursing home carefor an estimated 350,000 people simply to payfor his crown jewel of a tax cut for the rich.Meanwhile, seniors will be asked to pay thejeweler.

Fourth, the Speaker will cut payments formore than 60 percent of all the Illinois elderlywho enter nursing homes. With the Speaker’sblessing, no elderly or disabled individual willbe guaranteed coverage for any benefit, in-cluding nursing home care.

Mr. Chairman, is giving a tax break towealthy Americans really worth denying nurs-

ing home care each year to 50,000 sick andaged folk who live in my State?

Is it really worth denying long-term care for96,000 elderly and disabled in my State?That’s 49 percent of all those currently receiv-ing such services.

Mr. Chairman, as my constituent, Irene Nel-son, a senior citizen from Chicago, testified atthe Democratic alternative Medicare hearings,and I quote, ‘‘It is obvious to me that the peo-ple who are making these decisions are com-pletely out of touch with the daily struggles ofsenior citizens like me.’’

I beg of you, my colleagues: Please don’tdo this to your parents and to our Nation’s el-derly citizens. Find it in your heart to voteagainst the Speaker’s changes that makeMedicare and Medicaid into medican’t.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Tennessee [Mr.HILLEARY].

(Mr. HILLEARY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I risein proud support of this historic legis-lation.

Mr. Chairman, I proudly rise in support ofthis historic legislation, H.R. 2491, the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of1995. This legislation keeps the promises Imade to the people of the Fourth district ofTennessee.

This bill balances the Federal budget in 7years, provides genuine welfare reform, pre-serves Medicare for our elderly now and in thefuture, and provides real tax relief for middle-class families.

I am confident that the changes we aremaking here today will lead to lower interestrates and growth.

Not growth in the Federal bureaucracy, butgrowth in the private economy creating morejobs for the people of Tennessee.

History has shown us over and over againthat raising taxes hurts economic growth andnever raises as much money as promised. Infact, this morning in the Wall Street Journal,former Chairman of the President’s Council ofEconomic Advisers, Martin Feldstein, wrote anarticle showing that President Clinton’s incometax increase in 1993 failed to raise the moneyhe claimed. He writes that the IRS has re-cently published data showing that the steepincrease in the tax rates raised only aboutone-third of the amount of money that Presi-dent Clinton had predicted.

For the families of my district in Tennessee,they will see real tax relief. The $500-per-childtax credit means that families with childrenearning less than $25,000 will no longer payFederal income tax. Families making $30,000will see their Federal income tax bill cut al-most in half. Furthermore, lowering the capitalgains tax will mean more economic growthand more jobs for the people in Tennessee.

Unlike past efforts of Congress to balancethe budget, H.R. 2491 doesn’t rely on ac-counting tricks or gimmicks. It makes realcuts.

All of us in this Chamber, everyone in Ten-nessee and throughout the country has bene-fited over the years from the Federal Govern-ment’s overspending.

But this overspending has a devastating im-pact on our young who are the future of ourcountry. Right now, a child born today will payan average of $187,000 in taxes over a life-

time just to pay the interest on the debt. Thisirresponsibility in the Federal Governmentcan’t continue. It must stop. We can’t continueto do this to our children.

Cutting out programs many people have be-come comfortable with is not a job any of uscherish or enjoy. I can assure everyone thatmaking these cuts was not easy, but I can saythat they are fair.

Is this legislation perfect?I will be the first to admit that it is not a per-

fect bill. It’s no secret that I personally believethat we can and should balance the budget inless than 7 years.

Did we cut out only the wasteful programsand leave only the good ones?

No, I think there is still plenty more that canbe cut and we may have made some errorswhere we cut. Some of these errors can andwill be corrected as the legislative processcontinues. Other problems we may have toaddress with corrective legislation next year.

One of the problems we identified was inthe funding formula for the new MedigrantProgram. Under the House version of theMedicaid bill which uses 1994 as the baseyear for Medicaid payments, Tennessee wasin fact being penalized for pioneering a Staterun Medicare/Medicaid Program.

Under TennCare, Tennessee had paid outan extra $180 million to its Medicaid recipientsthat was not included in fiscal year 1994. Thisshort fall was a result of an entire 3 monthsof payments that the Federal Government hadnot included in its equation because of ac-counting differences between them and theState of Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the will-ingness of the Speaker to work with the Mem-bers of Tennessee on the Medigrant fundinglevels. The Speaker acknowledged a discrep-ancy between the State of Tennessee’s 1994Medicaid funding and the numbers used bythe Federal Government.

I thank the Speaker for his understanding ofthis problem and his support for putting anextra $180 million into TennCare’s 1996 fund-ing level to insure that no harm would cometo Tennessee’s Medicaid recipients.

Furthermore, I extend my appreciation tothe Speaker for his commitment to continuenegotiations as this legislation continuesthrough this process to ensure that Tennesse-ans receive their fair share of funding for theTennCare Program.

I believe we can work out these final prob-lems before the conference report is broughtback to the House.

Mr. Chairman, we need to move forwardthis historic legislation to change the directionof the Government.

I proudly support this bill and urge all of mycolleagues to vote for H.R. 2491.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Virginia [Mr.GOODLATTE].

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong support of this vitallyimportant legislation for the future ofour country.

Today we are keeping our promise to Amer-ica for a better future, and fulfilling the peo-ple’s mandate for change. No more excuses,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10903October 26, 1995no more Washington gimmicks. It’s time to dothe right think—it’s time to balance the budget.

Passing this budget reconciliation bill willbring more change to the way Washington op-erates than any other legislation in the lasthalf century. It eliminates deficits over the next7 years and does it honestly and fairly. And indoing so, it eases the crushing burden of Fed-eral debt on our children.

A balanced budget is more than just an ac-counting trick. Balancing the budget will lowerinterest rates which will mean lower mortgagerates, lower car loan costs, lower rates on stu-dent loans, and more jobs.

For instance, according to DRI-McGraw/Hill,an independent economic consulting firm,fixed rate mortgages would drop by 2.7 per-centage points and adjustable rate mortgageswould drop by 1.7 percentage points by 2002.This would boost home values by 8 percent,existing home sales by 11.5 percent, andhousing starts by 65,000 each year.

With this bill we keep other promises suchas bringing real reform to the welfare system.It breaks the cycle of dependency, and em-phasizes work, personal responsibility, and thepreservation of the family. It shifts power andresources back to the States and slices awaygovernment bureaucracy.

The bill includes Medicare provisions,passed earlier this year, which preserve, pro-tect, and strengthen Medicare. It saves Medi-care from bankruptcy while still increasingspending on this important health care pro-gram. It’s security for our seniors who haveplanned for their retirements with the hopethat Medicare will be there. And it’s securityfor baby-boomers who know we are commit-ted to a sound Medicare system when they re-tire.

We deliver on our promise of tax relief forAmerica’s families and a cut in the capitalgains tax to spur job creation and economicgrowth. According to the Joint Economic Com-mittee, a $500 per-child family tax creditmeans families with children earning less than$25,000 will see their entire Federal incometax liability eliminated. Families with incomesof $30,000 will have 48 percent of their Fed-eral income tax liability eliminated.

And capital gains tax relief means jobs andeconomic growth. Investment will not happenwithout capital, and capital will not be freed upwithout tax relief. Economic growth and morejobs means more tax revenue.

Despite what our critics say, we can bal-ance the budget and still give relief to ourhardworking and overburdened taxpayers. Andone thing we know for sure, increasing taxeshas not produced balanced budgets.

The American people want a smaller, moreefficient government, but Washington hasfailed to deliver until now. With this bill webegin slimming an overweight Federal bu-reaucracy by eliminating an entire Cabinet-level agency—the Commerce Department.

The budget reconciliation bill is the rightthing for America and America’s families. Wekeep our word and balance the budget. Mostimportant, we save the future of the Americandream for our children.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the very distinguishedgentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.JOHNSON].

b 1515

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Chairman, what we are doing here

today is passing the components of aprogram that over 7 years will balancethis Nation’s budget, but also put inplace a tax policy that will assure thatthe jobs will be created that peopleneed for their own security and thatour Nation needs, to enjoy a level ofeconomic growth that will make thatbalance possible.

This overall bill also addresses manyproblems. It is the first time we havetried to put in place a policy thatwould protect people of all ages fromthe catastrophic cost of nursing homecare. If we do not start now, we cannotsucceed for future generations.

But also within this bill are many,many detailed provisions that the pub-lic does not know about, but that willdirectly affect their lives. In the Tax-payer Bill of Rights section, a sectionthat is bipartisan, that was developedin a bipartisan way, has bipartisan sup-port, this bill builds on the work of theHon. Jake Pickle of Texas, who spentmany years trying to get this very leg-islation passed. I am proud not onlyhave we adopted his work, but we havegone beyond it. Because through theTaxpayer Bill of Rights, we make thetaxpayer now not a David who meetsGoliath, but an equal who has an op-portunity to be heard by the IRS, tohave a fair shot at paying only theirfair share of taxes.

For the first time, this Taxpayer Billof Rights will begin to look at the ter-rible and bad breaks that so many cou-ples who are separated and divorced getwhen dealing with the IRS. For thefirst time we ask the IRS, for the firsttime in all of our history, to come backto us every year with the 20 most im-portant problems that taxpayers face.For the very first time the IRS willhave the responsibility for their tax-payer advocates to actually tell theCongress what are the 20 most seriousproblems the people face in dealingwith their Government, and then wewill be able to change those things. Wedo not allow for their suggestions to gothrough the IRS or the Department ofthe Treasury. They must come directlyto us so that they cannot be filtered.

We do many, many things in this billto protect taxpayers from IRS actionsand to put taxpayers on an equal foot-ing with their Government.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of thislegislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw our col-leagues’ attention to some very important pro-visions in the Ways and Means Committeetitle of H.R. 2517 which collectively are knownas the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2.

For taxpayers who go up against the Inter-nal Revenue Service, it is too often a Davidvs. Goliath contest. The IRS is Goliath and thetaxpayer is David. The Ways and MeansCommittee title includes the recommendationsdeveloped by the Subcommittee on Oversightto increase the rights of taxpayers in dealingwith the IRS. The campaign to safeguard tax-payer rights has a long history. The TaxpayerBill of Rights 2 portion of title XIII will establisha new milestone in protecting taxpayers. Likethe David in biblical history, the average tax-

payer may be smaller than the rival IRS, butwe are giving him some strong weapons withwhich to defend himself.

The original Taxpayer Bill of Rights was en-acted in 1988. While this action was a goodfirst step, there was a consensus that morecould be done to protect the rights of tax-payers. The Oversight Subcommittee devel-oped follow-up legislation during the 102dCongress, but regrettably it did not becomelaw.

One of the early priorities of the OversightSubcommittee in the 104th Congress was toprotect the rights of taxpayers in dealing withthe IRS. Despite the helpful effects of the1988 legislation, the chorus of constituentcomplaints against the IRS convinced us thatfurther action was needed. On March 24,1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight held ahearing to investigate what additional safe-guards were apprporiate to provide taxpayersmore evenhanded treatment in their dealingswith the IRS. The hearing opened our eyes tothe many areas in which we need to act inorder to protect taxpayers.

For example, we learned of cases wherethe IRS began auditing a taxpayer’s returnand then the IRS employee conducting theaudit was transferred to a new division, andthe return sat for another year or two beforethe audit was completed. Under current law,the IRS has no authority to abate the interestwhich runs up during this period. The bill ad-dresses this problem by giving the IRS author-ity to abate interest charges that accrue as aresult of unreasonable delays caused by theIRS’s own mistakes.

The bill will also make it easier for taxpayerswho win their cases against the IRS in courtto collect attorney’s fees. Under current law,not only does a taxpayer have to prevailagainst the IRS to collect attorney’s fees, shemust also prove that the IRS was not justifiedin pressing its case against her. Our bill wouldshift the burden to the IRS of proving that itsposition was substantially justified. This is con-sistent with the judicial principle that the partyin control of the facts should bear the burdenof proof.

Another major problem area is the treatmentof separated or divorced taxpayers. Under cur-rent law, couples who file a joint tax return areeach fully responsible for the accuracy of thereturn and for the full tax liability, even thoughonly one spouse may have earned the incomewhich is shown on the return. This is calledjoint and several liability. Spouses who wish toavoid joint and several liability may file as amarried person filing separately.

The Oversight Subcommittee learned ofmany instances where divorced taxpayers whosigned a joint tax return during their formermarriage were treated harshly when the IRSlater disputed the accuracy of the return. Fartoo often, the IRS tried to collect the entireamount due from the wife, even though theomitted income or erroneous deductions whichcaused the tax deficiency were attributablesolely to her former husband. In some cases,the person pursued for payment of the taxesdue was not even aware that a tax return filedduring the marriage had been audited or theadditional taxes were due.

In an era where almost 50 percent of mar-riages end in divorce, this problem is contrib-uting to the perception that the tax system isunfair. The time has come to reexamine the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10904 October 26, 1995joint and several liability standard and to con-sider replacing it with a proportionate liabilitystandard, under which each spouse would beresponsible for the tax on that portion of theirincome which he or she earned. In order tofully consider the ramifications of such achange, our bill requires the Treasury Depart-ment and the General Accounting Office toconduct detailed studies examining possiblechanges to the joint and several liability stand-ard designed to better protect the interests ofseparated and divorced couples. This is anarea that we definitely intend to revisit afterthe studies are complete.

The Subcommittee on Oversight met onSeptember 12, 1995, and unanimously ap-proved a package of recommendations to ad-dress the taxpayer problems which we hadidentified from our hearing and from the nu-merous communications we had received fromtaxpayers. The recommendations for a Tax-payer Bill of Rights 2 were introduced on Sep-tember 14, 1995, as H.R. 2337. The full Com-mittee on Ways and Means included in its rec-onciliation title a Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 sub-title which is virtually identical to the workproduct of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

I am gratified at our action for two reasons.First, we have acted forcefully to protect therights of taxpayers in dealing with the IRS.Second, the subcommittee’s action was bipar-tisan, it was strongly supported by Members ofboth parties. I hope this will set the examplefor all the activities of the Oversight Sub-committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Nation’s taxpayers prob-ably will never enjoy paying their taxes, butthey should not feel powerless in dealing withthe IRS. The taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 will helpto better safeguard the rights of taxpayers.Until Congress implements fundamental re-forms of the tax system, the next best ap-proach is to make the current system operatein a way which treats taxpayers more fairly.

Finally, the following is a brief outline of theTaxpayer Bill of Rights two provisions whichare included in title XIII of H.R. 2517:

1. Creation of Independent Taxpayer Advo-cate. (a) Statutorily establish the positionand office of the Taxpayer Advocate withinthe Internal Revenue Service (IRS); (b) re-quire the IRS to make annual reports to thetax-writing committees describing the 20most serious problems taxpayers encounterwhen dealing with the IRS, along with theTaxpayer Advocate’s recommendations foradministrative and legislative actions to re-solve such problems; and (c) require the IRSto provide that regional problem resolutionofficers will actively participate in the selec-tion and evaluation of local problem resolu-tion officers.

2. Expand Taxpayer Assistance Order(TAO) Authority. Provide the Taxpayer Ad-vocate with broader authority to interveneon behalf of taxpayers.

3. Authority to Review a TAO. Providethat a TAO may be modified or overturnedonly by the Commissioner, Deputy Commis-sioner, Taxpayer Advocate, or RegionalProblem Resolution Officer, and require awritten explanation for modifications or re-versals of TAOs.

4. Improved Notification of InstallmentAgreement Changes. (a) Require the IRS tonotify taxpayers 30 days before modifying orterminating installment agreements (exceptin jeopardy cases) and to include in such no-tification the specific reasons for the actiontaken; and (b) require the IRS to establishan administrative appeals process in the case

of modifications or terminations of install-ment agreements.

5. Expand Abatement-of-Interest Author-ity. (a) Provide the IRS with expanded au-thority to abate interest resulting from erro-neous or dilatory ‘‘managerial acts’’ (e.g., forcases where the assessment or collection of adeficiency has been unreasonably delayed asa result of IRS’s loss of tax records, or IRSpersonnel management decisions, includingthe termination, transfer, training, and thegranting of leave for any reason to IRS em-ployees responsible for the handling of thetaxpayer’s case); and (b) give the U.S. TaxCourt the jurisdiction to review the IRS’sfailure to abate interest on an abuse of dis-cretion standard for taxpayers who meet thenet worth criteria of section 7430.

6. Extend Interest-Free Period for Remit-ting Tax. Extend the interest-free period pro-vided to taxpayers for the payment of tax li-ability reflected in the first notice from 10days to 21 days, if the total tax liabilityshown on the notice of deficiency is less than$100,000.

7. Study of the ‘‘Joint and Several’’ Liabil-ity Standard. Require the Treasury Depart-ment and the General Accounting Office toconduct studies, to be submitted to the tax-writing committees within six months of thedate of enactment, analyzing: (a) the effectsof changing the current standard of ‘‘jointand several’’ liability for married couples toa ‘‘proportionate’’ liability standard; (b) theeffects of requiring the IRS to be bound bythe terms of a divorce decree which directlyaddresses the responsibility for the tax li-ability arising from joint tax returns filedduring the former couple’s marriage; (c) pro-posals for expanding the ‘‘innocent spouse’’relief of IRC section 6013; and (d) the effectsof overturning the application of Poe v.Seaborn for income tax purposes in commu-nity property states.

8. Election to File Joint Return WithoutMaking Full Payment. Repeal the provisionthat requires full payment of tax liabilitiesas a precondition to taxpayers switchingfrom married-filing-separate status to mar-ried-filing-jointly status.

9. Improved Treatment of Separated or Di-vorced Spouses. Upon written request, re-quire the IRS to inform either spouse as towhether the IRS is making any attempt tocollect the tax liability from the otherspouse; the general nature of the collectioneffort; and, the amount collected.

10. Authority to Withdraw Notice of IRSLiens. Provide the IRS with authority towithdraw a public notice of tax lien prior topayment in full by the indebted taxpayerwhen it is ‘‘. . . in the best interest of thetaxpayer and the Government’’ and requirethat in the case of an erroneous lien, upontaxpayer request, the IRS must make rea-sonable efforts to notify major credit agen-cies and financial institutions of the erro-neous filing of the lien.

11. Authority to Return Levied Property.Provide the IRS with authority to return theproceeds of levies, without prejudice againstfuture reinstatement of the levy, if it is‘‘. . . in the best interest of the taxpayer andthe Government.’’

12. Increase the Protections of Taxpayersfrom IRS Levy Actions. Increase the exemp-tion level on fuel, furniture and personal ef-fects to $2,500, and index it thereafter for in-flation.

13. Offers-in-Compromise. Provide that of-fers-in-compromise which reduce tax liabil-ities by less than $100,000 do not require awritten opinion from the Office of the ChiefCounsel. Offers in compromise which wouldreduce tax liabilities by $100,000 or morewould continue to be subject to approval bya written opinion from the Office of the ChiefCounsel.

14. Civil Damages for Fraudulent Filing ofInformation Returns. Create a federal causeof action for a person who has been victim-ized by a willfully filed fraudulent informa-tion return to recover the greater of $5,000 oractual damages from the person(s) who filedthe fraudulent information return.

15. IRS Responsibility to Verify Accuracyof Information Returns. In cases where ataxpayer asserts reasonable dispute aboutthe accuracy of an information return, theIRS would be required to take reasonablesteps to investigate the accuracy of the in-formation return and would bear the burdenof producing reasonable and probative infor-mation to corroborate the return. The rea-sonable steps which the IRS must take tocorroborate the disputed information returnwould vary in response to the facts and cir-cumstances of each case. The objective is tomeet the standard outlined in Portillo v.Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (1991).

16. Expansion of Attorney-Fees Provisions.(a) In cases where a taxpayer substantiallyprevails over the IRS in a tax dispute, switchthe burden of proof from the taxpayer to theIRS to establish that the IRS was substan-tially justified in maintaining its positionagainst the taxpayer; (b) increase the hourlyrate of the attorney fees eligible for reim-bursement from the current rate of $75 to$110, and index this amount after 1996; (c)clarify that the taxpayer’s failure to extendthe statute of limitations shall not be con-sidered to be a failure to exhaust the admin-istrative process; and (d) repeal the currentprohibition which denies the reimbursementof attorney fees in some court actions for adeclaratory judgement.

17. Taxpayer Reliance on IRS Guidance. Indetermining whether or not the IRS was‘‘substantially justified’’ in maintaining itsposition against the taxpayer, the fact thatIRS employees did not follow its own pub-lished guidance (e.g., revenue rulings, reve-nue procedures, and information releases) inexamining the taxpayer, will create a rebut-table presumption that the IRS’s positionwas not substantially justified for the pur-pose of applying section 7430.

18. Increased Damage Awards to TaxpayersHarmed by Reckless IRS Collection Actions.(a) Increase the ceiling on damages to $1 mil-lion; and (b) give the courts discretion to re-duce a damage award because of the tax-payer’s failure to exhaust the administrativeremedies in the collection process, ratherthan a mandatory denial.

19. Modification of the Penalty to Collectand Remit Payroll Taxes. (a) Require theIRS to issue a preliminary notice 60 days inadvance of any demand for payment of the100-percent penalty imposed by section 6672,except in jeopardy cases; (b) in cases wherethe IRS is seeking to hold a person respon-sible for payroll taxes under section 6672, theIRS would be required to share with suchperson the identities of other persons whothe IRS also asserts are responsible for thetaxes and the collection activities which ithas pursued against those persons; (c) createa federal cause of action for a person whomay be held liable for the collection of taxunder section 6672 to seek contribution fromother persons who have a similar liabilityunder the law, but who have not yet contrib-uted their proportionate share of the liabil-ity for the collection of the tax. The ‘‘re-sponsible person’’ seeking a contributionwould proceed by bringing an independentaction against the third parties; and (d) pro-vide that the IRS will not impose the 100-percent penalty under section 6672 on unpaid,volunteer trustees or directors of tax-exemptorganizations if such persons serve solely inan honorary capacity, do not participate inthe day-to-day or financial operations of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10905October 26, 1995organization, and do not have actual knowl-edge of the failure to remit payroll taxes tothe IRS.

20. Enrolled Agents as Third-Party RecordKeepers. Add ‘‘enrolled agents’’ to the list ofthird party record keepers to whom section7609 applies.

21. Safeguards Related to Designated Sum-mons. (a) Require that IRS regional counselreview any designated summons before it isissued against a taxpayer; (b) limit the issu-ance of a designated summons to taxpayersbeing audited as part of the IRS’s Coordi-nated Exam Program (about 1,600 of the larg-est corporate taxpayers); (c) prohibit the IRSfrom issuing a designated summons for thepurpose of third-party information gather-ing, except in circumstances where the tax-payer being examined has transferred itsbooks or records to a third party; and (d) re-quire the IRS to submit an annual report toCongress describing the designated sum-monses issued by the IRS during the preced-ing year.

22. Relief from the Retroactive Application ofIRS Regulations. Provide that the effectivedate of any temporary, proposed, or finalregulation shall not be before the earliest of:

(a) the date the regulation is filed in theFederal Register; (b) in the case of a finalregulation, the date of the temporary or pro-posed regulation to which it relates was filedwith the Federal Register; and (c) the dateon which any notice substantially describingthe expected contents of any temporary, pro-posed, or final regulation is issued to thepublic. However, this limitation will notapply: (a) where the regulations are issuedwithin 12 months of the enactment of thestatutory provision to which the regulationrelates; (b) where the Secretary of the Treas-ury determines that the regulation should beretroactive in order to prevent abuse; (c)where the regulation is directed at correct-ing procedural defects in an earlier regula-tion; (d) where the regulation relates to theinternal policies, practices, and procedures

of the Treasury Department; (e) where thetaxpayer elects to have the entire regulationapply retroactively, i.e, back to the date ofthe underlying statute; or (f) in cases whereCongress grants authority to the Secretaryto prescribe the effective date of a regula-tion.

23. Report on IRS Pilot Program for the Ap-peal of Enforcement Actions. Require the IRSto submit a report to the tax-writing com-mittees, by March 1, 1996, about the scopeand results of its pilot program for the ap-peal of enforcement actions, including lien,levy, and seizure actions, together with anyrecommendations for legislative actionswhich may be necessary to facilitate the im-plementation of a permanent process for ap-peals of such enforcement actions.

24. Phone Numbers of Payors on Form 1099.Require that the providers of information re-turns include the phone number of thepayor’s service representative on the form1099.

25. Notification to Taxpayers of Overpay-ments. Require that the IRS make a reason-able attempt to notify, within 60 days, thosetaxpayers who have made payments whichthe IRS cannot properly post to the tax-payer’s account.

26. Damage Claims for Taxpayers InjuredWhen the IRS Uses Improper Informants.Create a civil cause of action allowing a tax-payer to sue the Government for the lesser of$500,000 or actual damages (plus costs) incases where any Federal Government em-ployee intentionally compromises the collec-tion of any tax due from an attorney, ac-countant, or enrolled agent representing ataxpayer in exchange for information sup-plied by the taxpayer to such a professionalfor the purpose of obtaining tax advice.

27. Annual Reminders of Outstanding TaxLiabilities. Require the IRS to send out an-nual reminders to taxpayers with outstand-ing delinquent accounts that are not in ac-tive collection status.

28. Extension of Authority for IRS Under-cover Operations. The Anti-Drug Abuse Actof 1988 exempted IRS undercover operationsfrom certain statutory restrictions control-ling the use of Government funds (which gen-erally provide that all receipts be depositedin the general fund of the Treasury and allexpenses be paid out of appropriated funds).This exemption expired on December 31, 1991.In general, the exemption permits the IRS to‘‘churn’’ the income earned by an undercoveroperation to pay additional expenses in-curred in the undercover operation. Extendthe IRS ‘‘churning’’ authority to December31, 2000.

29. Disclosure of Form 8300 Information onCash Transactions. Amend IRC section 6050Ito allow form 8300 information to be dis-closed for either civil or criminal enforce-ment or regulatory purposes under the samerules applicable to Currency Transaction Re-ports. This would permit form 8300 informa-tion to be used at various levels of govern-ment to identify targets for investigation ofpossible nontax related crimes.

30. Simplified Disclosure Procedures.Amend IRC section 6103(c) to delete the word‘‘written’’ from the requirement that ‘‘writ-ten consent’’ from the taxpayer is necessaryfor the disclosure of taxpayer information toa designated third party.

31. Study on Interest Netting. Require theSecretary of the Treasury to conduct a studyof the manner in which the IRS has imple-mented Congress’s directions regarding thenetting of interest on overpayments and un-derpayments and the policy andadminstrative implications of global interestnetting. Before submitting the report of suchstudy, Treasury would be required to hold apublic hearing on global interest netting toreceive comments from interested parties.The record of these hearings should be in-cluded in the report.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE EITC REFORMS ON EITC SPENDING BASELINE[Fiscal years 1995–2002]

[Millions of dollars]

Fiscal year1996

Fiscal year1997

Fiscal year1998

Fiscal year1999

Fiscal year2000

Fiscal year2001

Fiscal year2002

Total

1996–2002

EITC under present law ........................................................................................................................................................... 23,762 25,870 26,947 28,077 29,338 30,536 31,735 196,265Budgets effects of proposed reforms ...................................................................................................................................... ¥160 ¥3,417 ¥3,603 ¥3,754 ¥3,940 ¥4,109 ¥4,268 ¥23,251EITC under proposed reforms .................................................................................................................................................. 23,602 22,453 23,341 24,323 25,398 26,427 27,467 1 173,011

1 Totals do not add due to rounding. Estimates based on data from Joint Committee on Taxation.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentlewoman from Or-egon [Ms. FURSE].

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to point out to the gentlewomanfrom Connecticut [Mrs. JOHNSON] thatthe State of Connecticut would lose$590 million in health care for the el-derly and the disabled.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. RUSH].

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, I spent agood part of my morning at La RabidaChildren’s Hospital on Chicago’s SouthSide. Similar to many other children’shospitals across the Nation, over halfthe children cared for at this fine insti-tution rely on Medicaid.

I met many of these children onTuesday. And I want to remind my col-leges on the other side of the aisle that

these children are not faceless statis-tics. They are human beings.

Like 10-year-old Tyronne, who hasbeen coming to La Rabida for the last9 years of treatment of severe asthma,sickle cell anemia, and scoliosis (sko-lee-osis).

When hospitals like La Rabida carefor Tyronne, they do so at considerablygreater cost than what it takes to carefor adults. This is because of the widearray of equipment and supplies nec-essary to treat children of all ages andsizes.

Children’s hospitals cannot shiftcosts to adult patients or, like someother hospitals, to commercial payers.

Mr. Speaker, children’s hospitals areable to serve as an integral part of thisNation’s approach to health care be-cause of Federal funding provided tothem via the Medicaid Program.

And the Newt Gingrich Republicanswant to ignore this fact by passing theresponsibility for basic health care

services for children to the States—aresponsibility, that many States can-not or do not want to bear.

The American people must take along hard look at this so-called Ging-rich Republican revolution, and see thewreckage left in its wake.

The Gingrich Republican meat axwill cut deep. It will cut to the bone. Itwill cut to the marrow.

It will cut the lifeline of many of ourNation’s children. It will cut their ac-cess to basic health care.

Basic health care for our children isnot a privilege, it is a fundamentalright.

We must balance the budget, for ourchildren, not on the backs of our chil-dren.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. HASTERT], the distinguished dep-uty whip.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair-man, will the gentleman yield?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10906 October 26, 1995Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair-

man, I would like to engage the gen-tleman from Illinois; [Mr. HASTERT],the chief deputy whip and member ofthe Commerce Committee in a col-loquy in order to clarify one of theMedicaid provisions in this bill. As anactive member of health care, I am ex-tremely concerned with the enormousproblem of health care waste, fraud,and abuse that has riddled the pro-gram. The amount of such waste,fraud, and abuse perpetrated on tax-payers is staggering and must be eradi-cated.

It is my understanding that section2123 would prohibit any State fromusing its Federal MediGrant funds forany purpose other than medical assist-ance for eligible beneficiaries. Is thatcorrect?

Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman is cor-rect. Section 2123 would prohibit theStates from using any of the Federalfunds provided by this act for any pur-pose other than providing benefits andadministering the provisions of thisact.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The reasonI want to clarify this point is becausewe are all aware of the tremendousamount of waste, fraud, and abuse inthe current Medicaid system. If theStates are successful in exposing thiswaste and fraud, the residents from myState of Pennsylvania would like toknow that these savings will be used toprovide needed health care services—and not be diverted for some other un-related purpose.

Mr. HASTERT. I think the gen-tleman raises a very important point.The public has every right to expectthat the Federal funds Congress pro-vides for health care services for thepoor will in fact be used for healthcare. This bill gives them that assur-ance.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thankthe gentleman, again, for engaging inthis discussion. I commend the gen-tleman, Chairman BLILEY, and theCommerce Committee for acknowledg-ing the serious problem of waste, fraud,and abuse and for including these truereforms in the House budget reconcili-ation bill.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. CRANE], the chairman of the Sub-committee on Trade.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I came to this body in1969, and I reflected back when we gotinto this debate about counsel my fa-ther gave us as children. He passedaway this summer at the age of 94,mercifully in his sleep without painand suffering. He told us as kids, hesaid, ‘‘Boys, you have two obligationsin life: One is to be givers and not tak-ers; and, two, leave it better than youfound it.’’

I wrote him a letter after we got intothis process of trying to turn this coun-

try around before he died, and I said,‘‘Pop, you know, I was always able tobe a giver, because I controlled that.’’But when I came here in 1969, our na-tional debt was in the neighborhood of$385 billion. I knew that we were facingthe prospect of a $5 trillion nationaldebt this year. And I reflected backthat in 1969 we had a budget surplus, amodest $3 billion, but, still, it was asurplus, and I thought we were going toengage in elimination of debt at thattime. And I steadily watched this situ-ation deteriorate.

Now, does this move fast enough inguaranteeing that we get our books inbalance for our children and our grand-children? No, not in my estimation.Does this provide us the kind of tax re-lief that is necessary to again revital-ize our economy? No, not in my esti-mation. But it is a move in the rightdirection.

I think all of us have to share a re-sponsibility, having participated inthis process for all of these years, increating a kind of a climate that, if itis not addressed in 7 years, is hardlysalvaging anything, in 7 years to get usback on track.

This country still represents theworld’s last, best hope, and it is notjust for our children and our grand-children. We are talking posterity. Andeach one of us, when we raise our handand are sworn in in this body, has theobligation to engage in that commit-ment.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of mycolleagues, back off, take another lookat this, because this is in the nationalinterest. This is in the interest of man-kind.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of thebudget reconciliation bill. While I have madeseparate remarks on other provisions in thispackage, as chairman of the Trade Sub-committee, I would like to point out some ofthe benefits of the trade provisions included inthis bill. While these provisions have not beenat the center of the debate on the reconcili-ation bill, they nonetheless provide importanttools for U.S. business and industry in theglobal marketplace.

Included within the budget reconciliationpackage are a number of technical correctionsto certain trade legislation and other mis-cellaneous trade provisions. Passage of theseprovisions will streamline implementation ofthe Customs Modernization Act, the CaribbeanBasin Economic Recovery Act, the AndeanTrade Preference Act, the Uruguay RoundAgreements Act, the Harmonized Tariff Sched-ule, and the North American Free Trade Act.The administration and the business commu-nity have reviewed each of these provisionsand concluded that they are noncontroversial.

The bill also includes an extension of thegeneralized system of preferences program[GSP] which expired on July 31, 1995. Forover 20 years, the President has been author-ized to grant tariff preferences to developingcountries under GSP. Congress extended theprogram on a short-term basis in the 1993budget reconciliation bill, and then again in theUruguay Round Trade Agreements Act in1994.

I support extension of GSP because it is auseful program for promoting increased trade

with lesser developed countries. USTR canuse GSP benefits effectively as a trade policytool to achieve more open markets for U.S.exports. Testimony received by the TradeSubcommittee of the Committee on Ways andMeans confirms that many U.S. businessesdepend on duty-free treatment under GSP tohelp reduce costs.

H.R. 2491 extends authority for GSP for 2.5years, to terminate on December 31, 1997. Sothat there will be no gap in duty-free treatmentprovided under the GSP Program, the billwould provide for refunds of any duty paid,upon request, between July 31, 1995, and thedate of enactment. The recommendationslower the per capita GNP limit from $11,800 to$8,600, a number which would be indexed.When countries reach this limit, which is con-sidered high income under the bill, the Presi-dent is required to terminate the country’s eli-gibility for GSP benefits.

H.R. 2491 would lower the competitive needlimit in current law from $114 million in 1994to $75 million in 1995 and increase it by $5million each year after 1995. The bill wouldauthorize the President to designate additionalarticles from the least developed beneficiarycountries as eligible for GSP. This new author-ity does not apply to statutorily exempt articlessuch as textiles and footwear. Finally, the billupdates various provisions in order to simplifyadministration of the GSP Program.

Also, I would like to address the issue oftrade adjustment assistance. The Committeeon Ways and Means carefully examined notonly trade adjustment assistance for workersand firms, but also adjustment assistance pro-grams tailored to the implementation of theNorth American Free Trade Agreement. Thecommittee’s recommendations harmonize gen-eral trade adjustment assistance programs forworkers with the NAFTA Workers Security Actprograms.

I firmly believe that protectionism destroysjobs, while free trade creates jobs by increas-ing our competitiveness in the global market-place. Nevertheless, we have extended bothgeneral and NAFTA-related trade adjustmentassistance to reassure those workers uncer-tain about free trade.

NAFTA-related trade adjustment assistancefor workers will be extended through Septem-ber 30, 1998. General trade adjustment assist-ance will be extended through September 30,2000. Our recommendations require workersto enter approved training programs to receivefurther cash benefits. The Secretary of Laborwill be permitted to issue waivers of the train-ing requirement only if training is not available.Our recommendations also terminate reloca-tions allowances under both general TAA andNAFTA-related TAA. This will end a two-tieredsystem of haves and have-nots in which work-ers unemployed due to foreign competition arerelocated at the expense of the Federal Gov-ernment while those unemployed due to do-mestic competition are not eligible for such as-sistance.

The provisions included in the reconciliationbill reauthorize general trade adjustment as-sistance programs for firms through Septem-ber, 2000, at which time these programs willterminate.

The budget reconciliation bill also disman-tles and reorganizes the Commerce Depart-ment as part of the congressional effort tostreamline Government, increase its efficiency,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10907October 26, 1995and save taxpayer dollars. The legislation re-tains a number of trade-related functions thatare aimed toward achieving gains for U.S.companies and places them within the U.S.Trade Representative. I strongly believe thatwe should preserve powerful tools in this wayto negotiate initiatives that open foreign mar-kets, encourage growth in U.S. exports, andfight foreign unfair trade practices. This effortwill remove a Cabinet seat and streamline ourGovernment, while at the same time preserv-ing the functions that keep our U.S. compa-nies competitive.

I would like to add a word here about con-sideration of H.R. 2371, the Trade AgreementAuthority Act, which is not included in the rec-onciliation bill. This legislation would renewtrade agreements negotiating and implement-ing authority for the administration—to so-called fast track authority. We tried very hardto come to an understanding with the adminis-tration concerning the content and form of thisspecial procedure. However, the administra-tion would not agree to our language andseems to be prepared to do without this au-thority.

I believe that fast track is extremely impor-tant if we are to continue to implement tradeagreements that strengthen our economy, cre-ate good jobs, and reduce the deficit—includ-ing an agreement with Chile. However, the ad-ministration must recognize that fast track is aderogation of the rules of the Congress. Assuch, congressional concerns over the use offast track for issues that are not directly relat-ed to trade must be taken into account if thesespecial procedures are to be used by the ad-ministration in the future.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentlewoman from Or-egon [Ms. FURSE].

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentlewoman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pointout to the two gentlemen from Illinoisthat Illinois will lose $3.5 billion inhealth care under this bill.

I rise today to opposed this bill.Gosh, even Pat Buchanan says theMedicare cuts are to deep. I have heardthe GOP being called the get old peopleparty. Well, I think now, after this bill,it is going to be called the gut our pro-tections party.

This bill treats Medicare as a piggybank, to pay for a tax cut for the rich,and we did not get 1 day of hearing.This bill shuts down State efforts to re-form health care, like the Oregonhealth plan. This bill eliminate protec-tions for seniors, for children, for theenvironment, for students, while in-creasing Pentagon spending by $63 bil-lion.

Look, I am a grandmother. I knowwhat makes sense. This does not makesense. We should vote no. Let us notgut our protections; let us eliminatethe GOP budget.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. SHAW], the distinguished chair-man of the Subcommittee on HumanResources of the Committee on Waysand Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

Mr. Chairman, for the second timethis year, the House will be asked to

decide between the status quo andmaking real reforms to the failed wel-fare system.

Consider the millions of Americansnow on welfare. History tells us thatthey came from farms, they came fromall over this Nation and elsewhere insearch of a better life for themselvesand their families. They settled in thecities, they settled in the coal mines,and they were hard working becausethere was a strong work ethic.

Then the jobs went away. So whenthe jobs left the big cities and themines closed, why did not the samepeople who were the children of thosewho came to the factories, who came tothe cities seeking a better way of life,why did they not follow? Why did theynot go where there were better jobs andbetter opportunities?

They did not because the Congress ofthe United States, this Government,put into place a welfare system thatwas corrupt and destructive—althoughthought to be kind and gentle. For gen-erations now, we have seen this de-structive welfare system stay in placeand keep people where there are nojobs, a system that destroys self-es-teem, destroys families, destroys thebasic moral fiber that has held this Na-tion together. Now is the time to sweepthis failed welfare system away.

One of my colleagues has said that,through our welfare reforms, the Re-publicans are coming for the poor andthe children. Yes, we are. We are com-ing for them to pull them out of thelife of dependency and poverty. We aresweeping away a destructive system,and we are putting in a system thatcan work.

For once, after we pass this bill, letus join together in a new meaning ofthe American spirit and solve the prob-lems of poverty in this country, to givepeople back self-dignity, to discourageillegitimacy, to promote the family,and to promote the values that havemade this country great.

Support real welfare reform; supportthe Republican reconciliation bill.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15seconds to the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. RUSH].

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, this bill isdestructive to the people of Florida. Iwould like to point out to the gen-tleman from Florida who just spoke,that Florida will lose $5.9 billion inhealth care for the elderly and the dis-abled. Most of this is nursing homecare which would have to be paid for bytheir hard-working middle-class fami-lies.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentlewoman from Ar-kansas [Mrs. LINCOLN].

(Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, Ithink all Americans across this Nationhave called on us in Congress to dowhat is fair and reasonable to put ourNation back on track. We all hereshare a common goal in balancing thebudget and eliminating the deficit in

order to put our Nation back on track.But most Americans learn that youhave to eat your vegetables first beforeyou get your dessert, and that basi-cally translates to we have got to cutour spending, our abuse, and our wastefirst.

There are two choices before ustoday: No. 1, to achieve the goal whilesqueezing senior citizens, farmers, chil-dren, and military retirees, or, No. 2,achieve the goal by requiring thatevery group of Americans give a littleto make a contribution. If we wereblindfolded as Members of the House ofRepresentatives to all of the partisanpolitics that go on here, and asked tojust base our decisions weighted on themerits of these two packages, we wouldnot want to cut $100 billion more out ofMedicare than is necessary to balancethe budget. We would not want to cut$9 billion more out of agriculture thanis necessary to balance the budget.

This does not allow veterans thehealth care choices that they want anddeserve. It raises taxes on lower in-come Americans by $23 billion by re-moving the EITC. It cuts $10 billionmore out of student loan programsthan is necessary to balance the pro-gram. It does devastating things torural America and the life we knowthere.

I just ask my colleagues to take a se-rious look at what is an honest and fairway of balancing this budget for theAmerican people, and that is the coali-tion budget.

b 1530

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Nevada [Mr. ENSIGN].

(Mr. ENSIGN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I wasraised by a single mother with no childsupport, and each and every day I sawher get up and go to work, a lessonthat was taught to me that we haverobbed from welfare families. This haslead to a generational dependency.There is nothing more important inAmerica to learn than the work ethic.If we want people to get out of poverty,they have to work.

Our EITC program will preserve theincentive to go and get a job and stayoff of welfare. In fact, when the EITCwas created in 1975 total spending wasabout $2 billion. Today EITC spendingis $20 billion. That is a tenfold in-crease. Under our plan, total EITCspending will continue to grow toabout $27 billion.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know some ofour public schools are not that greatthese days, but even these schoolsknow that this is addition, not subtrac-tion. The American people know thatspending more on something is not acut. Only those who employ confusionand scare tactics fail to understandthis lesson.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10908 October 26, 1995The last point I want to make, Mr.

Chairman, is that some are calling thisa tax increase because we happen tonot be giving it to people with chil-dren. The last time I checked, when wegive a subsidy to the American peopleand then happen to remove that sub-sidy, that is not a tax increase. That issomething we are taking from one tax-payer, giving to the other, and then allof a sudden we decide we cannot affordto continue to give more and more oftheir money in taxes to other peopleand redistributing that.

Those on the left are calling this atax increase. That is the mindset theyhave. That is how corrupt they are intheir thinking.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15seconds to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Ms. DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, in re-sponse to the gentleman who justspoke, if we are not raising taxes thenwe did not need a budget waiver.

Let me quote Jack Kemp. This is atax increase on low-income workersand the poor, which is unconscionableat this time. We eliminate the creditfor working people who are withoutchildren. That is 4.3 million people andwe increase the phaseout rate.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from NewJersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, asCongress takes up the budget, theAmerican public fears the Republicansplan to curb Medicare spending, scoffsat their tax cut and flatly does not be-lieve that the plan would produce abalanced budget by 2002. That is fromthe latest New York Times CBS Newspoll that came out yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, I do not normally payattention to polls, but this time thepolls got it right and the Americanpeople got it right. The Republicanscall this the Balanced Budget Rec-onciliation Act, but how do we beginbalancing the budget by implementingsuch a large tax cut? We estimate thatafter 7 years the national debt will beat least $268 billion higher because ofthis tax cut that provides generousbenefits for the wealthy. The legisla-tion actually would raise taxes on tax-payers earning less than $30,000 a year.

Mr. Chairman, with all these tax cutsfor the rich, and without a balancedbudget, what are we getting in return?Well, essentially we are abolishingMedicare and Medicaid. The Speakerindicated in the quote earlier, SpeakerGINGRICH, that it is not being abolishedright away but eventually we will getrid of it.

For Medicaid recipients, for seniors,they are doubling the part B premium,increasing their taxes. They are impos-ing means testing. They are squeezingthe hospitals so much that providersand other providers at hospitals willclose or scale back their quality. Andalso seniors are going to lose theirchoice of doctors.

Medicaid is actually abolished inthis. Instead, we have block grants

going to the States without any stringsattached, really. So there are no guar-antees that poor people will get healthcare. Also, we lose the nursing homestandards. So much money will besqueezed out of this system we can besure those nursing homes are going todecrease in terms of the quality ofcare.

I went before the Committee onRules and I asked that there be a guar-antee for low-income seniors who nolonger will have their part B premiumfor the doctors paid under this legisla-tion. The Speaker said last week therewas going to be that guarantee. Thereis no guarantee. The public is right,the poll is right. Medicare and Medic-aid are essentially abolished and therewill be no balanced budget.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thedistinguished gentlewoman from Kan-sas [Mrs. MEYERS].

(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend her remarks.)

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in support of this balancedbudget amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with many of my col-leagues who believe today is an historic day.I have served in the House of Representativesfor a decade, and this is the very first oppor-tunity I will have to vote for a balanced budg-et.

There is no question that in a bill this size,which makes changes in almost every depart-ment and agency of government, every Mem-ber will find provisions with which they dis-agree. There are some provisions in this legis-lation which I would prefer to see changed, orin some cases dropped. But I will support thislegislation nevertheless, for three reasons:

First, we must preserve the Medicare Pro-gram from bankruptcy, and this legislation is afirst step in slowing the rate of growth of theprogram. This legislation does not cut Medi-care or Medicaid. It does slow the rate ofgrowth in these programs. While increasingspending from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in2002, per Medicare beneficiary.

I believe the changes we are making inthese health programs will secure health carefor the elderly and the poor well into the nextcentury. But, in making these changes, wemust ensure that people are not hurt by thechanges—and so we must closely monitorthese programs over the next several years tobe certain that they are working as we envi-sion.

Second, over the past several years, I haveworked very hard to change our welfare sys-tem, and this bill contains the same provisionsof legislation I authored in 1993. I believe ourwelfare system has failed the very people itwas designed to help. Instead of moving peo-ple out of poverty and into well-paying jobs, ithas trapped people by fostering illegitimacy,weakening families, and discouraging work. Ifwe don’t make changes in these programs, bythe year 2000, 80 percent of majority children,and 40 percent of all children, will be born outof wedlock. Our concern is the children. Thedollars are important, without a doubt, but thechanges we are making today are for the chil-dren. We want our children to be born intocaring families, to have fathers, to enjoy child-

hood, and to be able to pursue an education.This means that above all else, we must curbthe illegitimacy rate and restore personal re-sponsibility in a caring and compassionateway. And I think that is what we are doing inthis bill.

Third, finally, I will support his bill today be-cause we cannot afford to fail. This is our firststep toward a balanced budget in 2002. If wedon’t do it now, we may not have anotherchance until it is too late.

This process will not get any easier; andmay not get done at all if we fail the very firstyear we try—and we cannot afford to fail.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, howmuch time is remaining on both sides?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has 11 minutesand 45 seconds, and the gentlewomanfrom California [Ms. ESHOO] has 131⁄2minutes remaining.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentlewoman fromWashington [Ms. DUNN].

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chair-man, I rise to address one of our coun-try’s greatest domestic problems, theNation’s illegitimacy rate. In 1940, therate was well under 5 percent. Even 15years ago, in 1980, the illegitimacy ratewas only 15 percent. Today, 15 yearslater, it is doubled. It is 30 percent. Itis a terrible revolution in birth pat-terns.

Mr. Chairman, the consequences ofthis explosion are staggering. Every-one, including the President, recog-nizes that the exploding illegitimacyrate is the Nation’s most important do-mestic problem because it is the lead-ing cause of school failure, crime, un-employment, and welfare dependency.

Why does illegitimacy lead to theseproblems? Consider these four facts:First, the poverty rate among childrenwith never-married mothers is almosteight times that of children in two-par-ent families. Second, the odds of anout-of-wedlock child being on welfareare 10 times that of a child born into atwo-parent family. Third, the odds ofan out-of-wedlock child having a par-ent who does not work are six timesgreater than the odds for a child froma two-parent family. In fact, 40 percentof children born out of wedlock have noworking role model parent in theirlives. And fourth, the rate of schoolsuspension among out-of-wedlock chil-dren is over three times as high as therate of children from two-parent fami-lies.

Mr. Chairman, everybody realizesthat illegitimacy is an outrage butonly Republicans are proposing solu-tions that will effectively alleviate theproblem. We get what we pay for, Mr.Chairman, and the Federal Govern-ment is now guaranteeing a package ofbenefits to teenaged children who havebabies that adds up to $12,000 everyyear. By far, the most important ac-tion we can take to reduce illegitimacyand to stigmatize this most destructivebehavior is to cut the cash subsidies.

The House Republican welfare reformbill is the only bill that deals with ille-gitimacy in this direct fashion. Only

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10909October 26, 1995Republicans have the courage to takethe strong action necessary to combatthe tragic scourge of illegitimacy. Un-fortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not seeany other way to do it.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10seconds to the gentlewoman from Illi-nois [Mrs. COLLINS].

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chair-man, I want to point out to the gentle-woman from Washington who justspoke that in her State her constitu-ents will lose $2.36 billion in healthcare for the elderly and the disabled.That is really what I call guardians ofthe privileged.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MAR-KEY].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, lastThursday night the Speaker stood inthis well and charged me with mis-representing the facts, with engagingin an absurd misrepresentation and al-legation. He said, in fact, there is aprovision in the Medigrant programthat provides that senior citizens atthe poverty level and below have all oftheir part B premium paid for by thetaxpayers 100 percent.

Now, my hope was that when hespoke last Thursday night, he wasgoing to include that in this reconcili-ation package. They have not. In fact,only 44 percent of all those poor sen-iors’ Medicare part B premiums aregoing to be covered. They are not, infact, protected at all 100 percent. Justthe opposite is the case.

Mr. Chairman, back in the 1960’s ourpolitical leaders asked us not what ourcountry could do for us, but what wecould do for our country. Well, in 1995,the Republican motto is ask not whatour country can do for us, but ask whatwe can do for the country club. This isa contract with the country club. Thistakes money out of the pockets of sen-ior elderly, out of students, piles it up,and then gives tens of billions of dol-lars of tax cuts to the wealthy in ourcountry. The wealthy are not asked tosacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, back in the Civil War,because the wealthy could buy theirway out of the war, they said it was arich man’s war but a poor man’s fight.Well, here in this reconciliation battlein 1995, it is a rich man’s war but it isa poor man’s fight. The rich man gettremendous, tens of thousands of dol-lars in tax breaks, and the poor seniorshave their Medicare premiums go up.The poor students and working classfamilies have their student loan pay-ments go up, and yet the Republicansstand here and tell us that they careabout the working people in this coun-try.

Mr. Chairman, this is a wrong votefor America, just plain wrong. Vote noon the Republican reconciliation bill.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. HOUGHTON].

(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, thegentleman from Illinois [Mr. CRANE]was up here a little earlier talkingabout suggestions that his father hadmade to him in his early years, one wasto give and not take, and the other wasto leave the world better than when hefound it. He might have added anotherthing. Do not spend it unless we haveit.

This bill gives us an opportunity forthe first time I have seen since I havebeen down here to spend within ourmeans. President Reagan used to talkabout morning in America. I really feelwe can extend this to this is morningin America for our children. No partyhas a lock on caring. No party is tryingto hurt our children or our mothers orour nursing homes or our seniors. It isall our jobs to protect them.

Mr. Chairman, most Republicans andDemocrats, I would like to feel, withthe possible exception of some of thefire brands, are going about the task ofdoing this thing quietly and carefully.

Let me give Members an example.There is a thing that the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. RANGEL] has beenworking on with me called the workopportunity tax credit. People come offwelfare, they need jobs, this is a way tocreate incentives for those people whoare willing to offer them jobs. It is awonderful program. It hires those peo-ple who have not had jobs and also ithelps retain them. Is it going to solveall the problems in welfare? Certainlynot. But it will help.

This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Chair-man. I have never seen any bill whichis perfect down here, but it is a goodbill and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, on another issue, I hope thislegislation will foster the development of pro-vider networks, including specialty networks.They would assure seniors that they will havechoices relating to behavioral, rehabilitationand any other specialty care services.

The private sector has engaged in directcontracting with specialty networks in order tolower costs and improve access to qualitytreatment as well as expand choice for con-sumers. The Medicare program should alsoexplore the utilization of these specialty net-works for the same reasons.

I believe the Health Care Financing Admin-istration has adequate demonstration authorityunder current law to test the feasibility and de-sirability of permitting specialty provider spon-sored networks to serve the new Medicaremarket. A demonstration project would serveto determine whether seniors have access tothe most cost effective quality treatments forspecialized services.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20seconds to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. KLINK].

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, to mygood friend from New York, Mr.HOUGHTON, I want to point out thatwhen the gentleman puts his card inthe machine and casts his vote for thisreconciliation bill today that people inhis State of New York who are elderlyand disabled will lose $11.2 billion, andthis money will have to be made up forin nursing home care and hospital careby their hard-working middle classfamilies.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Ver-mont [Mr. SANDERS].

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentlewoman for yielding metime.

Mr. Chairman, in one word, in oneword, this Republican reconciliationbill can be described as a fraud. Noth-ing more, nothing less, a fraud. Whatkind of sense does it make to ask sen-ior citizens to pay $312 a year more fora weekend Medicare Program while theRepublicans give a $14,000-a-year taxbreak to people making $300,000 a year?

b 1545

Why should we ask low-income work-ers to pay more in taxes, while we cutand do away with taxes for some of thelargest and most profitable corpora-tions in America?

Why do we throw 20,000 Vermontersoff of Medicaid, low-income, disabledpeople, children, senior citizens off ofMedicaid, while we retain and not cut$800 billion in corporate welfare for theprivileged and the wealthy?

Mr. Chairman, this Republican pro-posal is a fraud and it must be returnedto sender. Let us defeat it today.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Illinois [Mr. HASTERT].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, wehave heard a lot of allegations todayhere. I have heard my socialist friendfrom Vermont talk about cuts for peo-ple on Medicare. The fact is in our rec-onciliation bill we raise, over the 7years, people’s Medicare from $4,800 to$6,700, a 40-percent increase.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to talkabout cuts, I would like to take a lookat this placard that we have here. Wewant to talk about what a real cut is.In the Clinton 1993 health care bill, insection 9101 of the Clinton bill it said:The Secretary shall provide each yearfor payment to regional alliances forthe amount equal to the Federal medi-cal assistance a percentage of 95 per-cent. That is a cut. The 5-percent de-crease is a real cut. My colleagues cansee here on the math, we go down 5 per-cent.

In the Republican majority 1995 Med-icaid Program, there is an increase.The Medicaid growth increase for fiscalyear 1996 is 7.2 percent and it growsfrom there. The conference agreementof the budget resolution grows Medic-aid 7.2 percent.

Mr. Chairman, a cut is below theline. A cut is what we had in the Clin-ton health care bill when we cut Medic-aid and only gave it to people at 95 per-cent; a 5-percent cut. Increase is whenthe line goes above and we give theAmerican taxpayers and people onMedicaid, the American poor that needit, a 7.2-percent increase.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30seconds to the gentlewoman from Con-necticut [Ms. DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, let mejust say that Medicare, Medicaid, that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10910 October 26, 1995is what this is about. It is tax breaksfor the rich versus Medicare and Medic-aid.

The Speaker, in his own words, hassaid what he believes we ought to dowith Medicare, and that is that we donot get rid of it now in round one be-cause we do not think it is politicallysmart, but we do believe that it isgoing to wither on the vine.

That is the true, the true statementabout the Speaker and how he feelsabout the Medicare Program and its fu-ture.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Texas [Mr.THORNBERRY].

(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday to express my support for the SevenYear Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of1995.

I do so with concern over several of thebill’s provisions, particularly those relating tothe Federal Helium Program, the Freedom toFarm Act, and certification requirements forweather radar service office. But these con-cerns are outweighed by the historical signifi-cance of the bill, and the singular importanceof its No. 1 goal—mainly, to balance the budg-et in 7 years.

It has been 27 years since the Federal Gov-ernment passed a balanced budget. In thattime, a burden of debt has been placed onAmerican families that casts a long shadowover current and future generations. A childborn today will pay an average of $187,000 inlifetime taxes just to pay off interest on the na-tional debt. It is a moral imperative that we getthis weight off this shoulders. It is what wewere elected to do.

But just as important as removing this bur-den for those coming into the world is restor-ing economic opportunity and security forthose already here.

The single most imposing obstacle to eco-nomic advancement in our Nation today is theFederal Government. It discourages savingsand security by overtaxing middle-income fam-ilies. It stifles growth and investment by over-regulating small businesses. And, for the lessfortunate, it smothers hope and independenceby promoting welfare over work. What RonaldReagan said more than 15 years ago stillholds true: In our country today, government isnot the solution to our problem—governmentis the problem.

This legislation addresses this problem inmany important ways. Among the bill’s manyworthwhile provisions, I am especially pleasedwith those which reform the welfare system ina way that emphasizes work and family. I amalso happy that this bill takes a much-neededfirst step toward reducing the outrageous pen-sions Members of Congress receive. Finally, Iam pleased with the provision that replacesthe current Medicaid system with MediGrants,which will not only benefit taxpayers by con-trolling runaway spending, but will also benefitStates by giving them the freedom to develophealth care delivery systems that suit theirneeds the best.

As I indicated, I do have concerns about theprovisions relating to three specific areas. TheFederal Helium Program has become an easy

issue to demagogue, but the provisions in-cluded in this legislation do not provide theguarantee of a reliable, affordable supply ofhelium which this country must have. In addi-tion, I am concerned that the provisions relat-ing to the Freedom to Farm Act are not in thebest interests of the country. However, myreservations in this regard are overcome bythe certainly that the problems with these pro-visions will addressed in conference. I am alsoconcerned with possible lapses in public safe-ty caused by repealing the requirement that noweather service offices be shut down unlessthere is proven to be no degradation of radarcoverage. This is critical to my region of thecountry, where radar coverage is not up topar. We should use House-approved languageproviding for a streamlined procedure whichreduces unnecessary spending and empha-sizes quality of service in problem areas.

I would also like to briefly touch on why Ivoted against the alternative measure intro-duced by a coalition of Members from theother side of the aisle. The coalition should becommended for offering a substantive alter-native that balances the budget in 7 years.Both the leadership of their own party andtheir President have failed to do either ofthese things. However, the coalition proposalfalls short in several critical areas. For onething, it would provide for an adjustment in theconsumer price index, which could lead to areduction in Social Security benefits. Second,the coalition plan fails to provide tax relief forthe middle class, thereby breaking the promisewe made to American taxpayers.

I am pleased that the majority reconciliationbill fulfills this important promise by providingtax relief to families and incentives for job cre-ation, both of which are absolutely essentialand long overdue. These provisions will allowtaxpayers to keep a portion of the moneytaken in the tax increase passed in August1993, and correct an ill-conceived policy thateven the President admits was a mistake. Iam also happy that this legislation includes theTaxpayer Bill of Rights, which will provide tax-payers with protections from a wide range ofGovernment abuses.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is truly historic. Whileis not perfect, it represents a giant leap towardkeeping the promise we made to the Americanpeople to balance the budget and get our Na-tion heading in the right direction.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the very distinguished gen-tleman from Florida [Mr. GIBBONS].

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I wantto talk to the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. KASICH] a second. The stock mar-ket has already voted on the gentle-man’s plan today. It is down 50 points.I would say to the gentleman, ‘‘Yourcrown jewel has turned to paste.’’

The crown jewel, the $500 tax cut forevery child that has been so freely ad-vertised by my Republican friends, isnow down to $365 per child, and the billhas not even gotten to second readinghere on the floor. Lord knows what itwill be when it gets to third reading orgets back from the Senate.

But, Mr. Chairman, that is not all ofit. That $365 per child, that was $500 forevery child, does not cover 33 percentof all the children who are in familieswho would qualify for this. Their fami-lies do not qualify for 1 red cent.

So, the $500 per child tax cut is downto $365 and 33 percent of the familiesget absolutely nothing out of this. Itall goes to the rich. Then they tax,wrack, tear, root $270 billion out of thesick and the old. They tear, root, andrip $450 billion, almost a half a trilliondollars, out of children, out of sick peo-ple, out of nursing home care people.

Mr. Chairman, this is a travesty onthe American public. Nobody is argu-ing about balancing the budget. The ar-gument is how we balance the budget.Who has to carry the burden? The Re-publican way, the ‘‘Get Old People’’way, the GOP way, is to give to therich a $245 billion tax cut, then take allof that money and the rest of the bal-ancing of the budget money out of thechildren, the sick, the poor, and theaged.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman from Or-egon [Mr. BUNN].

Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman,the Oregon Health Plan is an innova-tive, cost-effective plan. We spend$3,800 per person in Oregon, down over10 percent from the national average.

Hospital charity care had gone down30 percent since the implementation ofthe plan. Welfare rolls have decreased 8percent and we have covered an addi-tional 130,000 people. The governor saidwe needed $1,042,000,000; the Speakerhas provided $1,025,000,000 in this plan.

Mr. Chairman, we will have an Or-egon Health Plan next year. We willwork with the leadership to provide itbeyond that.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for theleadership’s support for the OregonHealth Plan.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30seconds to the gentlewoman from Illi-nois [Mrs. COLLINS].

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chair-man, I would like to point out to thegentleman from Oregon [Mr. BUNN]who just spoke over on the GOP sidethat out of this bill, the State of Or-egon will lose $1.8 billion in health carefor the elderly and the disabled.

Mr. Chairman, even the doctors saythat, ‘‘People will be sicker and peoplewill die as a result of this toxic mix offunding cuts and elimination of stand-ards.’’ We need to keep that in mind.

Mr. Chairman, the GOP guardians ofthe privileged ought to look at whatthe doctors are saying. ‘‘People will besicker and people will die as a result ofthis toxic mix of funding and standardcuts.’’

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewomanfrom California [Ms. ESHOO] has 6 min-utes 10 seconds remaining and the gen-tleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] has 5minutes 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. ARCHER], the very distinguishedchairman of the Committee on Waysand Means.

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, as I lis-tened to this debate, I was struck bythe growing philosophical differences

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10911October 26, 1995between the two parties. It is unfortu-nate, because we should all be Ameri-cans instead of Republicans and Demo-crats.

But there is a difference between us.As we Republicans move forward tobalance the budget and reduce the taxburden on the American people, wehave made our governing philosophyvery clear. We believe that thestrength of this Nation lies not withthe Government, but with each of usindividually in our communities, in ourchurches, in our homes. Left to theirown, without Government interference,redtape, or excessive taxation, there isno problem the American people can-not solve.

But Mr. Chairman, the great socialexperiment of the last 30 years has ledto an unparalleled expansion of theFederal Government. Sadly, this hasfailed to solve our Nation’s most dif-ficult problems. Nowhere is that morethe case than in our miserable and un-fortunate welfare system where, in thelast 30 years, we have spent over $5trillion in the war on poverty, only tolose the war.

Mr. Chairman, the Government thatthe Democrats brought, along with thebankruptcy at whose brink they haveleft us, has overextended its reach andit has made promises to the people thatno government can fulfill.

Government cannot take the tax dol-lars that are earned by one citizen,hand them over to another, and thenbelieve that they have improved the lotof either citizen, yet for 30 years, Gov-ernment tried that. It is called tax andspend.

Mr. Chairman, the time has come toadmit that tax and spend has failed. Itis time to reduce the size of Govern-ment and to give the tax dollars backto the people who earn them. I say tomy colleagues across the aisle, ‘‘Itain’t your money. It belongs to thepeople who have earned it.’’

Mr. Chairman, it is clear from thisdebate that the Democrat Caucus isthe liberal caucus. The overwhelmingmajority of the Democrat Party, aparty that I once belonged to myself,insists that the Government in Wash-ington, DC remains the only solutionand represents the best hope of how tosolve people’s problems, if only wewould just spend more money.

Those on the other side argue overand over again that we could make ourNation’s problems go away. If only we,the Government, had a few more of thepeople’s tax dollars, we could solve ourproblems, so say the Democrats.

Mr. Chairman, while the world haschanged, the Democrats in Washingtonhave not. They still cling to the notionthat an ever-expanding Federal Gov-ernment, one that requires more taxesfrom its citizens, is the best hope thatwe have to solve our problems. As wedownsize Government to a balancedbudget, they do not want to give anydividend to the hard-working taxpayersof this country.

Mr. Chairman, we fell differently.While the hearts of the Democrats may

sound as if they are in the right place,their fingers are in the wrong place.Their fingers remain stuck deep in thewallets of middle-income Americanstrying to take from one citizen in orderto give to another.

The Democrats in Congress cling tothe notion that big Government, isbest; that more power in Washington iswise; and that more spending leads tomore solutions.

To my colleagues across the aisle, Ihave a simple message: Let it go. Let itgo. Let it go.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my Democratcolleagues, We tried their way for 30years. We raised taxes and we increasedspending. Now it is our turn. We wantto cut taxes, yes. Not for rich Ameri-cans; for middle-income Americans.That is what our tax bill does.

We want to cut spending and we wantto balance the budget. That is whatthis bill does and that is why I am vot-ing for it and why it is historic in turn-ing this country around and giving itback to the people.

Ms. ESCHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield15 seconds to the gentlewoman fromCalifornia [Ms. HARMAN].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wouldlike to point out that when the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. ARCHER] castshis vote, the elderly and disabled in hisState will lose $6.5 billion in healthcare. Most of this is in nursing homecare for seniors, which will have to bepaid for by the hard-working middle-class families.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from California [Ms.HARMAN].

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to this budget.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. DEUTSCH].

b 1600

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, thereis an old expression: If it looks like aduck and it sounds like a duck and itquacks like a duck and it walks like aduck and it smells like a duck, there isprobably a pretty good darn chance itis a duck.

Let me tell my colleagues about theRepublicans and Medicare. BOB DOLE:‘‘I was there fighting the fight, votingagainst Medicare, one out of twelve,because we knew it would not work in1965,’’ a couple of days ago.

Speaker GINGRICH on Medicare: ‘‘Wedo not get rid of it in round one, be-cause we don’t think that that is po-litically smart and we don’t think thatis the right way to go through a transi-tion period. But we believe it is goingto wither on the vine because we thinkpeople are voluntarily going to leaveit,’’ just yesterday.

There are three big lies about theMedicare plan. The first one is that itis such a terrible thing that there is a7-year actuarial life. In the 30 years of

the Medicare System, 12 of those 30years, there was a shorter actuariallife, and we did something about it. Wemade tough choices, and we did some-thing about it. We changed it, not un-precedented health insurance.

The second big lie is $270 billion incuts. The actuaries, nonpolitical peo-ple, not numbers out of the ballpark. Ithas nothing to do with saving Medi-care. The money is not going into thetrust fund. It is a flat-out lie. The $270billion in Medicare is not going to saveMedicare. It is just a flat-out lie. It hasnothing to do with the problems withthe trust fund.

The third problem and the third lie isthe issue of choice. My colleagues con-tinue to say that there is going to bechoice. It is a false choice, because es-sentially the Speaker is right; no onewill be able to stay in Medicare exceptfor the richest of the rich, because peo-ple will be forced out of Medicare,forced into substandard HMO’s. Thisplan is wrong, wrong, wrong. I urge ano vote.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 11⁄2 minutes.

(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to this Gingrichbudget. There are many reasons to op-pose it, but I want to highlight two:how it treats our Nation’s elderly andour Nation’s children. On both counts,this legislation fails miserably to liveup to our Nation’s historic commit-ment to those in the autumn of theirlives and those in the spring of theirlives.

There is nothing in this bill to pre-vent nursing homes from using phys-ical restraints on seniors without adoctor’s order, nothing to preventnursing homes from evicting the elder-ly for financial reasons, nothing to pre-vent abuses which existed in manyStates prior to critical Federal inter-vention.

As a member of the Committee onCommerce, I was proud to offer anamendment which would have contin-ued the guarantee of health coveragefor our children. That failed. As a re-sult of these Medicaid cuts and otherGingrich proposals, our children willreceive less health care, less preschooleducation, and less money to live on.

This Gingrich budget fails the test ofdecency for our children, for our elder-ly, and it deserves to be defeated. Itdoes not honor our fathers and ourmothers, and it totally dishonors ourNation’s children.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds tothe gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.COLLINS].

(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend her remarks.)

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chair-man, I hope that my friends and mycolleagues on the other side realizewhat everybody is saying about this

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10912 October 26, 1995thing that is absolutely true. That isthat, because Federal law forbids deny-ing emergency care to uninsured, hos-pitals could avoid financial harm onlyby closing emergency rooms and trau-ma centers, and the general public isgoing to be hurt.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11⁄2minutes to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. KLINK].

(Mr. KLINK asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thoughtI was misreading my calendar. Ithought that it was a week after Hal-loween, not the week before Halloween,because, you see, this week the maskscome off. Last week we heard theSpeaker give an impassioned speechhere in this very well in which he gaveus, first of all, his entire family treeand told us how important Medicarewas to all of these people and how hewas going to make sure that Medicarewas there for them. Then this week,when speaking to a group of very im-portant people in the insurance indus-try, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, hesaid: ‘‘We don’t get rid of it in roundone because we do not think that po-litically it is smart. We don’t thinkthat is the right way to go through atransition period, but we believe it isgoing to wither and die on the vine.’’

I ask, when was the Speaker beingtruthful? Was he being truthful to us aweek ago in this very well when hetalked to us about the fact this was animportant program that he was tryingto save, or in fact was he being truthfulto these people that he was talking tofrom the insurance industry?

For a few Americans this bill is real-ly going to be like the Good Ship Lol-lipop. It is going to shower sugarplumsand candy canes in the form of taxbreaks for the very wealthy. But formost of middle-class America, this billthat we are debating here on the floorof the House today is indeed the S.S.Titanic. It simply will not float.

This bill is going to shred a healthcare system that has protected seniorcitizens for 30 years. It cuts Medicareby $270 billion. It cuts Medicaid by 180billion. To those who think we have agood health delivery system, 60 percentof the money that goes into trainingdoctors and into taking care of medicalneeds of our country come from theseprograms. Vote against this bill. It ishorrendous.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yieldthe balance of my time to the distin-guished gentleman from Michigan [Mr.DINGELL].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] is recog-nized for 35 seconds.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I havelistened all during this debate to myRepublican colleagues say that Medi-care does not work. I do not like tohear that, and I do not think the seniorcitizens like to hear it, because Medi-care has worked. Medicare has pro-longed the lives of senior citizens. Med-icare has given a better standard of liv-

ing to the American people. Medicarehas prevented young people from hav-ing to choose between college for theirkids and health care for their parents.Medicare has seen to it that, instead ofless than 50 percent of the senior citi-zens having health care, that now al-most 100 percent do. Americans arecovered by health care amongst thesenior citizens.

Americans are urged by the NewYork Times, and they say, reject thebig Medicare cuts. The big Medicarecuts we are talking about here arenothing more or less than somethingthat is going to hurt the senior citi-zens, and it is being done by the Repub-licans to ensure that they can give atax cut to the very rich.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.Chairman, I yield such time as he mayconsume to the gentleman from Illi-nois [Mr. FAWELL].

(Mr. FAWELL asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of this reconciliation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.2517, the Seven Year Balanced Budget Rec-onciliation Act of 1995. The current budgetarysituation facing this Nation is staggering.Years of deficit spending have pushed our na-tional debt to nearly $5 trillion. For a child borntoday, the share of this debt totals $19,000.The landmark measure before us today, whichwould set a glidepath to achieve a balancedFederal budget by the year 2002, will provideour children with a future that promises eco-nomic opportunity and prosperity, rather thana future of paying for our irresponsible fiscalbehavior.

Earlier this year, Congress adopted the con-gressional budget resolution, a nonbindingblueprint of Federal spending over the next 7years. This resolution recommended reducingthe overall growth of Federal spending to 3percent annually, instead of the current 5 per-cent annual growth. H.R. 2517 fulfills thepromise of the budget resolution and makesthe necessary changes in our revenue andspending laws to achieve a balanced budgetfor the first time in a generation.

H.R. 2517 would balance the Federal budg-et by restraining spending and shrinking thesize of Government. The plan encompassesinnovative reforms in all areas of Federalspending, including: reforming the welfare sys-tem to emphasize work, families, and respon-sibility; restructuring Medicare to reign in out-of-control health care expenditures, and simul-taneously giving seniors more choice in healthcare services; converting the Medicaid Pro-gram into ‘‘Medigrants,’’ block grants to theStates to allow more flexibility in providinghealth care to the disadvantaged elderly anddisabled; closing billions of dollars in corporatetax loopholes; scaling back agriculture sub-sidies; abolishing the Department of Com-merce; repealing burdensome and costly Fed-eral statutes, such as the Service ContractAct; privatizing portions of the Federal bu-reaucracy, such as the U.S. Enrichment Cor-poration; and, terminating out-dated Federalprograms, such as the Federal Helium Pro-gram.

Opponents of this legislation argue that Re-publicans are recklessly cutting Federalspending. A closer look at the plan, however,

reveals that there are no cuts in spending. Toillustrate, during the last 7 years, from 1989 to1995, Federal spending totaled $9.5 trillion;under the Republican plan, during the next 7years Federal spending will total $12.1 trillion.The growth in the major Federal programsover the next 7 years is indisputable: Medicarespending will increase by $672 billion; Medic-aid spending will increase by $330 billion; and,welfare spending will increase by $346 billion.The bottom line is clear: under the Republicanplan, overall Federal spending will increase by$2.6 trillion during the 1995–2002 period. Onlyin Washington can these increases in spend-ing be considered cuts. On the same note, Iwould also point out that even with the enact-ment of $245 billion in tax relief in this legisla-tion, overall Federal revenues will still increaseby $3.3 trillion during the same period.

H.R. 2517 is not a perfect bill. There is oneprovision in particular about which I would liketo comment. Section 13607 of the legislationeffects a seismic change in pension law bypermitting employers to withdraw for any pur-pose so-called excess assets from ongoingprivate pension plans of the defined benefitvariety. This is said to raise about $9.5 billionin revenue from the $27 billion in withdrawalsexpected to be made by employers over the5-year window opened up under the bill. ‘‘Ex-cess assets’’ means assets above a thresholddefined as the larger of 125 percent of currentliability or the plan’s full funding limit—equal tothe lesser of the plan’s accrued actuarial liabil-ity or 150 percent of current liability.

In short, this means that employers canwithdraw plan assets above a minimum assetthreshold which can, in effect, vary from 125to 150 percent of current liability depending onplan structure.

The potential risks related to these provi-sions are not small. My first concern is thatso-called excess assets can be withdrawnfrom a pension trust even by employers inbankruptcy who can then terminate the planwith no guarantee the remaining assets will besufficient to pay for all plan benefits. This isbecause the defined threshold beyond whichassets may be withdrawn can be less than thethreshold of assets required in the event of theactual plan termination by a financially dis-tressed employer.

I believe the American Academy of Actuar-ies is correct in saying that the minimumthreshold for asset reversions should bebased on plan termination liability, rather thancurrent liability. I generally concur with theviews expressed by the Pension Benefit Guar-anty Corporation [PBGC], that a plan whosecurrent liability is 125 percent funded may infact be less than 100 percent for purposes ofits liability at plan termination. This discrep-ancy is the result of differences in the actuarialassumptions used for interest, mortality, andexpected retirement age. While the PBGC cal-culations may not be perfect, the discrepancybetween current and termination liability isreal, and the danger to employees, pensionersand the taxpayer in the case of the terminationof an underfunded plan by an insolvent em-ployer is real.

The overall funding of defined benefit pen-sion plans has declined precipitously since1987 when, in order to increase revenues,Congress placed an artificial full funding limit,that is, a maximum limit, on the level of tax-deductible employer contributions. As a result,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10913October 26, 1995many large employer plan sponsors havebeen forced to take contribution holidays, andthus have been prevented from funding towardprojected actuarial liabilities—a more accuratemeasure of long-term pension plan costs thancurrent liability. I believe it is time to recon-sider the suitability of this artificial maximumcontribution limit and ensure a more soundfunding target—it is not the time to adopt adefinition of excess assets based on the inad-equate standard of current liabilities.

It may, indeed, be time to reconsider thesuitability of this artificial maximum contribu-tion limit and ensure a more sound fundingtarget of at least ‘‘plan termination liability’’which is the level of plan assets needed topay all benefits upon the actual termination ofa plan. Clearly, it could not have been in-tended that a large employer in or facingbankruptcy be enabled to extract assets froma pension plan and to then terminate the em-ployer’s plan or plans, leaving other employerswho pay PBGC premiums or taxpayers to payfor the pensions of the employer’s under-funded plan or plans. This can be avoided bylistening to the voice of pension experts in theAmerican Academy of Actuaries who suggestthe withdrawal threshold be based on at leasttermination liability.

It also may well be that a more refined pen-sion policy allowing for the reversion of pen-sion assets that are truly excess could help re-store employer interest in defined benefitplans and, thus, expand pension coverage.However, the provision should be crafted care-fully, should amount to more than a temporaryrevenue raising measure, and should take intoconsideration the protections of that title I ofEmployer Retirement Income Security Act[ERISA] presently provides to plan participantsand retirees. Without a permanent provisionemployers will have no incentive to create orremain in defined benefit plans—and that pur-ported benefit of section 13607 will never berealized. Care must also be taken to recognizethe complexity of individual plans, includingthe fact that so-called excess assets can arisefrom contributions made by employees as wellas those made by employers.

Moreover, the reversion provisions of sec-tion 13607 may not even generate the reve-nue projected. Corporations with a tax loss

carry-forward will look to acquire companieswith excess assets, so that they can take a re-version tax free. Alternatively, companies maywait to take reversions until they have a tax-loss year. Thus, we may be encouraging theremoval of an estimated $27 billion of excessassets without gaining the sought-after reve-nue.

The success of ERISA private pensionplans in America has been immense—$3.5trillion of assets invested in America. In addi-tion, unlike Social Security and many publicpension plans, the assets are real. So far,ERISA’s ‘‘prudent man rule’’ has protected thesanctity of those trust funds. We have beensuccessful in the House in fighting off the ad-ministration’s efforts to hawk economically tar-geted investments [ETI’s] to private pensionplan fiduciaries. That effort could rightly be de-scribed as an attempt by the administration toforce private pension assets to be used for so-cially correct investments. We want to allowemployers the right to take true excess fundsfrom their pension trusts, but the words ‘‘ex-cess funds’’ are, at best, actuarial indefiniteand vague. It is therefore essential that theformula for allowing employers to removefunds from pension trusts be unquestionablybased on the most conservative of actuarialprinciples. I believe that this is the essence ofwhat Republicans stand for. I fear, however,that section 13607 is not fully consistent withthese principles.

Finally, I remain concerned that the rever-sion provisions in section 13607 do not in-clude the ERISA amendments necessary toenable pension plan asset reversions to be le-gally consummated.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, although Ihave these concerns about the pension rever-sion provisions, this reconciliation bill hasmany more positives than negatives. Andthere still is opportunity—in conference—forsalutary changes. What is most important isthat the constant failure of Congress to reacha balanced budget is leading us to an unfor-givable consequence: passing on trillions ofdollars in Federal debt to future generations ofAmericans. The best time to begin puttingmatters in order is today; when it comes tomaking tough decisions to rein in total Federalspending, tomorrow never comes.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.Chairman, I yield the balance of mytime to the gentleman from California[Mr. BILBRAY].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom California [Mr. BILBRAY] is recog-nized for 40 seconds.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am afreshman. I have not been here before,but I do recognize the fact that thecitizens of the United States want toget their fair share for their dollarspent.

The colleagues to my left keep point-ing out about Medicare. My seniors aresaying, why pay more than twice therate of inflation? Any good consumerwould not only encourage that, theywould demand that. That is all we aresaying.

Let me leave you with this: I keephearing my colleagues on the otherside of the aisle, who controlled thisbody for 40 years, saying that they sup-port a balanced budget. As a freshmanwho has come here this year, my ques-tion to them is, why again and againever since the 1960’s have they not beenable to present that balanced budget tothe people?

So all I ask them to do is quit findingexcuses not to vote for a balancedbudget. The American people want it.They are tired of the excuses fromWashington, and they want us to provethat we can balance the budget justlike they do every day of their lives.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to HouseResolution 245, all time for general de-bate, has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, an amendmentin the nature of a substitute consistingof the text of H.R. 2517, as modified bythe amendments printed in House Re-port 104–292, is adopted and the bill, asamended, is considered as an originalbill for the purpose of further amend-ment and is considered read.

The text of the amendment in the na-ture of a substitute, as modified, is asfollows:

N O T I C EIncomplete record of House proceedings. Except for concluding business which follows,

today’s House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the Record.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1905,ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP-MENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT,1996

Mr. BUNN of Oregon submitted thefollowing conference report and state-ment on the bill (H.R. 1905) making ap-propriations for energy and water de-velopment for the fiscal year endingSeptember 30, 1996, and for other pur-poses:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 104–293)

The Committee of Conference on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.1905) ‘‘making appropriations for energy andwater development for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1996, and for other purposes,’’having met, after full and free conference,have agreed to recommend and do rec-ommend to their respective Houses as fol-lows:

That the Senate recede from its amend-ments numbered 6, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 36, 44,45, 46, 47, 57, and 58.

That the House recede from its disagree-ment to the amendments of the Senate num-bered 7, 13, 14, 25, 33, 38, 39, 40, 43, and 54; andagree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1:That the House recede from its disagree-

ment to the amendment of the Senate num-bered 1, and agree to the same with anamendment, as follows:

In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment insert: $121,767,000; and the Senateagree to the same.



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment insert:

Norco Bluffs, California, $375,000;Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, $500,000;Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky,

$2,000,000;Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County,

Pennsylvania, $300,000; andWest Virginia Port Development, West Vir-

ginia, $300,000: Provided, That the Secretary ofthe Army, acting through the Chief of Engi-neers, is directed to undertake a study of watersupply and associated needs in the vicinity ofHazard, Kentucky, using $500,000 of the funds

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10914 October 26, 1995appropriated under this heading in Public Law103–316 for Hazard, Kentucky.

And the Senate agree to the same.Amendment numbered 3:That the House recede from its disagree-





In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment insert:

Homer Spit, Alaska, repair and extend project,$3,800,000;

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River NavigationSystem, Arkansas, $6,000,000: Provided, That$4,900,000 of such amount shall be used for ac-tivities relating to Montgomery Point Lock andDam, Arkansas;

Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Ar-kansas and Louisiana, $6,600,000;

Sacramento River Flood Control Project(Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District), California,$300,000;

San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana RiverMainstem), California, $5,000,000;

Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana,$1,500,000;

Arkansas City flood control project, Kansas,$700,000, except that for the purposes of theproject, section 902 of Public Law 99–662 iswaived;

Winfield, Kansas, $670,000;Harlan (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big

Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River),Kentucky, $12,000,000;

Williamsburg (Levisa and Tug Forks of theBig Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River),Kentucky, $4,100,000;

Middlesboro (Levisa and Tug Forks of the BigSandy River and Upper Cumberland River),Kentucky, $1,600,000;

Salyersville, Kentucky, $500,000;Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane

Protection), Louisiana, $13,348,000;Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, $2,300,000;Red River below Denison Dam Levee and

Bank Stabilization, Louisiana, Arkansas, andTexas, $2,500,000;

Roughans Point, Massachusetts, $710,000;Marshall, Minnesota, $850,000;Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, $1,000,000;Broad Top Region, Pennsylvania, $4,100,000;Glen Foerd, Pennsylvania, $200,000;South Central Pennsylvania Environmental

Restoration, Pennsylvania, $3,500,000;Wallisville Lake, Texas, $5,000,000;Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurri-

cane Protection, Virginia, $1,100,000;Hatfield Bottom (Levisa and Tug Forks of the

Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River),West Virginia, $200,000; and

Upper Mingo (Levisa and Tug Forks of theBig Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River),West Virginia, $2,000,000: Provided, That theSecretary of the Army, acting through the Chiefof Engineers, shall transfer $1,120,000 of theConstruction, General funds appropriated inthis Act to the Secretary of the Interior and theSecretary of the Interior shall accept and ex-pend such funds for performing operation andmaintenance activities at the Columbia RiverFishing Access Sites to be constructed by theDepartment of the Army at Cascade Locks, Or-egon; Lone Pine, Oregon; Underwood, Washing-ton; and the Bonneville Treaty Fishing AccessSite, Washington: Provided further, That usingfunds appropriated in Public Law 103–316 forthe Sacramento River Flood Control Project (De-ficiency Correction), California, project andfunds appropriated herein for the SacramentoUrban Area Levee Reconstruction, California,project, the Secretary of the Army, acting

through the Chief of Engineers, is directed toacquire all or part of the Little Holland tract,with any and all appurtenant water rights, forwetland and fish and wildlife activities pursu-ant to the authority of section 906 of Public Law99–662 and conditioned on a determination madeby the Secretary, pursuant to Section 906, thatacquisition is in the Federal interest.



In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment insert: $1,703,697,000; and the Senateagreed to the same.



In lieu of the sum named in said amend-ment insert: $151,500,000; and the Senateagreed to the same.



Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended as follows:

In lieu of the sum named in said amend-ment, insert: $62,000,000; and the Senateagreed to the same.



Retain the matter proposed by said amend-ment, and on page 7, line 18, of the House en-grossed bill, H.R. 1905, strike ‘‘the’’, and in-sert in lieu thereof, ‘‘any civil’’.



Delete the matter stricken by said amend-ment and insert the matter proposed by saidamendment, amended as follows:

Strike subsection (d) and insert in lieuthereof the following: (d) If any of the fourCorps of Engineers hopper dredges is removedfrom normal service for repair or rehabilitationand such repair prevents the dredge from ac-complishing its volume of work regularly carriedout in each of the past three years, the Sec-retary shall not significantly alter the operatingschedules of the remaining Federal hopperdredges established in accordance with the re-quirements of subsection (a) above.



In lieu of the matter inserted by saidamendment, insert:

SEC. 103. With the exception of the use offunds to process any required Department of theArmy permits, none of the funds appropriatedherein or otherwise available to the Army Corpsof Engineers may be used to assist, guide, co-ordinate, administer, prepare for occupancy of,or acquire furnishings for or in preparation of amovement to the Southeast Federal Center.

And, on page 9, line 12, of the House en-grossed bill, H.R. 1905, strike ‘‘(b) PROJECTDEPTH.—’’ and all that follows through‘‘harbor or refuge.’’, on page 10, line 2 and in-sert in lieu thereof the following:

(b) PROJECT DEPTH.—The project described insubsection (a) is modified to provide for an au-thorized depth of 12.5 feet.

(c) NAVIGATION CHANNEL (MODIFIED).—The re-authorized project navigation channel shall be

defined by the following coordinates: 2911N–2239E, 3240N–2504E, 3964N–2874E, 4182N–2891E,4469N–2808E, 4692N–2720E, 4879N–2615E, 4952N–2778E, 4438N–2980E, 4227N–3097E, 3720N–3068E,3076N–2798E, 2996N–2706E, 2783N–2450E.

(d) HARBOR OF REFUGE.—The project de-scribed in subsection (a), including thebreakwalls, pier and authorized depth of theproject (as modified by subsection (b)), shallcontinue to be maintained as a harbor of refuge.



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert:

SEC. 106. Using $2,000,000 of the funds appro-priated herein, the Secretary of the Army, act-ing through the Chief of Engineers, is author-ized to undertake the Indianapolis, Indiana,project, authorized in section 5 of Public Law74–738, as amended, and as modified to includecertain riverfront alterations as described in theCentral Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Mas-ter Plan, dated February, 1994, at a total cost of$65,975,000 with an estimated first Federal costof $39,975,000 and an estimated first non-Federalcost of $26,000,000.

SEC. 107. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845–4847) is amended—

(1) in the heading to subsection (c) by striking‘‘WITH SARCD COUNCIL’’;

(2) in subsection (c) by inserting ‘‘with State,regional, and local officials, including, whereapplicable,’’ after ‘‘consult’’;

(3) in subsection (d)(2)(A) by inserting ‘‘whereapplicable,’’ after ‘‘Council’’;

(4) in subsection (g)(1) by striking‘‘$17,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’; and

(5) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ‘‘Bedford,Blair, Cambria, Fulton, Huntingdon, and Som-erset’’ and inserting ‘‘Armstrong, Bedford,Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin,Fulton, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin,Somerset, Snyder, and Westmoreland’’.

(b) COST SHARING.—Section 313(d)(3) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1992 (106Stat. 4846) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(3) Cost sharing.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Total project costs under

each local cooperation agreement entered intounder this subsection shall be shared at 75 per-cent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. Thenon-Federal interest shall receive credit for thereasonable costs of design work completed bysuch interest prior to entering into a local co-operation agreement with the Secretary for aproject. The Federal share may in the form ofgrants or reimbursements of project costs.

‘‘(B) INTEREST.—In the event of delays in re-imbursement of the non-Federal share of aproject, the non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for reasonable interest to provide the non-Federal share of a project’s cost.

‘‘(C) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall receivecredit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, andrelocations toward its share of project costs, in-cluding direct costs associated with obtainingpermits necessary for the placement of suchproject on public owned or controlled lands, butnot to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.

‘‘(D) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CREDIT.—Operation and maintenance costs for projectsconstructed with assistance provided under thissection shall be 100 percent non-Federal.’’.

SEC. 108. Using $2,000,000 of the funds appro-priated herein, the Secretary of the Army, act-ing through the Chief of Engineers, is author-ized and directed to proceed with engineering,design, and construction of projects to provide

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10915October 26, 1995for flood control and improvements to rainfalldrainage systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St.Tammany Parishes, Louisiana, in accordancewith the following reports of the New OrleansDistrict Engineer: Jefferson and Orleans Par-ishes, Louisiana, Urban Flood Control andWater Quality Management, July 1992;Tangipahoa, Techefuncte and Tickfaw Rivers,Louisiana, June 1991; and Schneider Canal, Sli-dell, Louisiana, Hurricane Protection, May1990. There is authorized to be appropriated$25,000,000 for the initiation and partial accom-plishment of projects described in these reports.The cost of any work performed by the non-Fed-eral interests subsequent to the above cited re-ports, as determined by the Secretary of theArmy to be a compatible and integral part of theprojects, shall be credited toward the non-Fed-eral share of the projects.

SEC. 109. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the pro-visions of this section, the Secretary of the Armyshall convey to the City of Prestonburg, Ken-tucky, all right, title, and interest of the UnitedStates, in and to the land described in the Sup-plemental Agreement—Modification No. 2 to theDepartment of the Army lease #DACW69–1–76–0186, executed by and between the Departmentof the Army and the Commonwealth of Ken-tucky, together with any improvements thereon.

(b) CONDITIONS.—The conveyance authorizedby this section is subject to the following condi-tions:

(1) The City shall ensure that the land con-veyed by this section will be used for public userecreational purposes and to further the re-gional economic development.

(2) The City shall use all proceeds derivedfrom the sale or lease of any mineral rights con-veyed pursuant to this section for the develop-ment, operation, and maintenance of rec-reational facilities on the lands conveyed in ac-cordance with this section.

(3) The City shall accept the property in itscondition at the time of the conveyance. TheSecretary shall not be required to make any im-provements in the property’s condition, and theCity shall hold and save the United States freefrom any claims or damages arising from anyactivities on the conveyed land either on thedate of the conveyance or any subsequent date.

(4) If the City uses the land conveyed underthis section for any purpose other than thosespecified in this paragraph, the Secretary shallnotify the City of such failure. If the City doesnot correct such nonconforming use during the1-year period beginning on the date of such no-tification, the Secretary shall have a right of re-verter to reclaim possession and title to the landconveyed under this section.



In lieu of the section number named in saidamendment, insert: 110; and the Senate agreeto the same.



In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment insert: $12,684,000; and the Senate agreeto the same.









In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment insert: $2,727,407,000, toremain available until expended; and the Sen-ate agree to the same.






In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment insert: For nuclear wastedisposal activities to carry out the purposes ofPublic Law 97–425, as amended, including theacquisition of real property or facility construc-tion or expansion, $151,600,000, to remain avail-able until expended, to be derived from the Nu-clear Waste Fund.



In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment insert: $3,460,314,000; and the Senateagree to the same.









In lieu of the matter inserted by saidamendment insert: : Provided, That of theamount herein appropriated, $85,000,000 shall beavailable for obligation and expenditure onlyfor an interim storage facility and only uponthe enactment of specific statutory authority.








ment to the amendment of the Senate num-

bered 41, and agree to the same with anamendment, as follows:




In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment insert:

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For expenses necessary to carry out the func-tions of the United States member of the Dela-ware River Basin Commission, as authorized bylaw (75 Stat. 716), $343,000.

CONTRIBUTION TO DELAWARE RIVER BASINCOMMISSION

For payment of the United States share of thecurrent expenses of the Delaware River BasinCommission, as authorized by law (75 Stat. 706,707), $428,000.



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment insert:

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION


For expenses necessary to carry out the func-tions of the United States member of the Susque-hanna River Basin Commission as authorized bylaw (84 Stat. 1541), $318,000.

CONTRIBUTION TO SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASINCOMMISSION

For payment of the United States share of thecurrent expenses of the Susquehanna RiverBasin Commission, as authorized by law (84Stat. 1530, 1531), $250,000.






In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert: The Tennessee Valley Au-thority shall, not later than March 30, 1996,submit to Congress a preliminary plan for fund-ing the environmental research center fromsources other than direct appropriations to theTennessee Valley Authority after fiscal year1996; and the Senate agree to the same.



In lieu of the matter stricken by saidamendment, insert:

SEC. 501. Section 510 of Public Law 101–514,the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water Develop-ment Appropriations Act, is repealed.

SEC. 502. Notwithstanding the provisions ofany other law, the report referred to in Title 30of Public Law 102–575 shall be submitted withinfive years from the date of enactment of thatAct.



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10916 October 26, 1995In lieu of the matter stricken by said

amendment, insert:SEC. 504. Section 4(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An

Act to provide for the restoration of the fish andwildlife in the Trinity River Basin, California,and for other purposes’’, approved October 24,1984 (98 Stat. 2723), is amended—

(a) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘October 1,1995’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘October 1,1996’’; and

(b) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘ten-year’’and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘eleven-year’’.



In lieu of the matter stricken by saidamendment, insert:

SEC. 507. In order to ensure the timely imple-mentation of the Colorado Ute Indian WaterRights Settlement Act of 1988, the Secretary ofthe Interior is directed to proceed without delaywith construction of those facilities in conform-ance with the final Biological Opinion for theAnimas-La Plata project, Colorado and NewMexico, dated October 25, 1991.



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert:SEC. 508.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Adminis-

trator’’ means the Administrator of the Bonne-ville Power Administration.

(2) COUNCIL.—The term ‘‘Council’’ means theNorthwest Power and Conservation PlanningCouncil.

(3) EXCESS FEDERAL POWER.—The term ‘‘ex-cess Federal power’’ means such electric powerthat has become surplus to the firm contractualobligations of the Administrator under section5(f) of the Pacific Northwest Electric PowerPlanning Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839c(f))due to either—

(A) any reduction in the quantity of electricpower that the Administrator is contractuallyrequired to supply under subsections (b) and (d)of section 5 of the Pacific Northwest ElectricPower Planning and Conservation Act (16U.S.C. 839c), due to the election by customers ofthe Bonneville Power Administration to pur-chase electric power from other suppliers, ascompared to the quantity of electric power thatthe Administrator was contractually required tosupply as of January 1, 1995; or

(B) those operations of the Federal ColumbiaRiver Power System that are primarily for thebenefit of fish and wildlife affected by the devel-opment, operation, or management of the Sys-tem.

(b) SALE OF EXCESS FEDERAL POWER.—Not-withstanding section 2, subsections (a), (b), and(c) of section 3, and section 7 of Public Law 88–552 (16 U.S.C. 837a, 837b, and 837f), and section9(c) of the Pacific Northwest Electric PowerPlanning and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.839f(c)), the Administrator may, as permitted byotherwise applicable law, sell or otherwise dis-pose of excess Federal power—

(1) outside the Pacific Northwest on a firmbasis for a contract term of not to exceed 7years, if the excess Federal power is first offeredfor a reasonable period of time and under thesame essential rate, terms and conditions tothose Pacific Northwest public body, cooperativeand investor-owned utilities and those directservice industrial customers identified in sub-section (b) or (d)(1)(A) of section 5 of the PacificNorthwest Electric Power Planning and Con-servation Act (16 U.S.C. 839c); and,

(2) in any region without the prohibition onresale established by the second sentence of sec-

tion 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to author-ize the completion, maintenance, and operationof Bonneville project for navigation, and forother purposes’’, approved August 20, 1937 (com-monly known as the ‘‘Bonneville Project Act of1937’’) (16 U.S.C. 832d(a)).

(c) STUDY BY COUNCIL.—(1) Within 180 days ofenactment of this Act, the Council shall reviewand report to Congress regarding the most ap-propriate governance structure to allow more ef-fective regional control over efforts to conserveand enhance anadromous and resident fish andwildlife within the Federal Columbia RiverPower System.

(d) CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROCUREMENT.—TheAssistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,acting through the North Pacific Division of theCorps of Engineers, is authorized to place ordersfor goods and services related to facilities forelectric power generation and fish and wildlifemitigation associated with the Federal ColumbiaRiver Power System with and through the Ad-ministrator using the authorities available tothe Administrator.

(e) RESIDENTIAL EXCHANGE.—Notwithstandingthe establishment, confirmation and approval ofrates pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 839e, and notwith-standing the provisions of 16 U.S.C. 839c(c), thecost benefits of eligible utilities’ total purchaseand exchange sales under 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(1)shall be $145,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1997, andthe net benefits paid to each eligible electricutility shall be $145,000,000 multiplied by thepercentage of the total of such net benefits paidby the Administrator to such utility for FiscalYear 1995.

(f) PERSONNEL FLEXIBILITY.—The Adminis-trator may offer employees voluntary separationincentives as deemed necessary which shall notexceed $25,000. Recipients who accept employ-ment with the United States within five yearsafter separation shall repay the entire amountto the Bonneville Power Administration.

(g) SAVINGS.—Unless superseded by an Act ofCongress, the authority provided by this sectionis expressly intended to extend beyond the fiscalyear.




SEC. 509. Section 7 of the Magnetic Fusion En-ergy Engineering Act (42 U.S.C. 9396) is re-pealed.



In lieu of the section number named in saidamendment, insert: 510; and the Senate agreeto the same.

JOHN T. MYERS,HAROLD ROGERS,JOE KNOLLENBERG,FRANK RIGGS,RODNEY P.

FRELINGHUYSEN,JIM BUNN,BOB LIVINGSTON,TOM BEVILL,VIC FAZIO,JIM CHAPMAN,

Managers on the Part of the House.

PETE V. DOMENICI,MARK O. HATFIELD,THAD COCHRAN,SLADE GORTON,MITCH MCCONNELL,ROBERT F. BENNETT,CONRAD BURNS,ROBERT C. BYRD,

FRITZ HOLLINGS,HARRY REID,BOB KERREY,PATTY MURRAY,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OFTHE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The managers on the part of the House andthe Senate at the conference on the disagree-ing votes of the two houses on the amend-ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1905)making appropriations for energy and waterdevelopment for the fiscal year ending Sep-tember 30, 1996, and for other purposes, sub-mit the following joint statement to theHouse and the Senate in explanation of theeffects of the action agreed upon by the man-agers and recommended in the accompany-ing conference report.

The language and allocations set forth inHouse Report 104–149 and Senate Report 104–120 should be complied with unless specifi-cally addressed to the contrary in the con-ference report and statement of the man-agers. Report language included by theHouse which is not changed by the report ofthe Senate or the conference, and Senate re-port language which is not changed by theconference is approved by the committee ofconference. The statement of the managers,while repeating some report language foremphasis, does not intend to negate the lan-guage referred to above unless expressly pro-vided herein. In cases in which the House orSenate have directed the submission of a re-port, such report is to be submitted to bothHouse and Senate Committees on Appropria-tions.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

The summary tables at the end of this titleset forth the conference agreement with re-spect to the individual appropriations, pro-grams and activates of the Corps of Engi-neers. Additional items of conference agree-ment are discussed below.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Amendment No. 1: Appropriates $121,767,000for General Investigations instead of$129,906,000 as proposed by the House and$126,323,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The conferees are aware that there is exist-ing authority for the Corps of Engineers tomaintain the Dog River in Alabama from theMobile Harbor Ship Channel to 2,600 feetwest of the Alabama Highway 163 bridge. Theriver has severe siltation west of that pointand is not navigable during low tide. Fromwithin available funds, the Corps of Engi-neers is directed to use $200,000 to initiate areconnaissance study of that portion of theDog River.

The conference agreement includes $150,000for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,Palm Beach County, Florida, project, Usingthese funds, the Corps of Engineers is di-rected to perform a reevaluation study of theauthorized navigation improvements alongthe Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in PalmBeach County.

The conference agreement includes$6,205,000 for the Upper Mississippi River andIllinois Waterway study, the same as thebudget request. The purpose of this study isto address the need for navigation capacityexpansion on the Upper Mississippi River andIllinois Waterway. The conferees believethat the environmental component of thestudy should be limited to any impacts asso-ciated with expanding the capacity of thetwo systems. Therefore, the conferees direct

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10917October 26, 1995the Corps of Engineers to not expand thescope of the study such that its total cost ex-ceeds that presented in the current ProjectManagement Plan. In addition, because ofthe need for a timely review of future navi-gation needs on the upper Mississippi Riverand Illinois Waterway, the conferees directthe Corps to expedite work on the study andensure that the Division Engineer’s publicnotice on the feasibility report is issued nolater than December of 1999.

The Secretary of the Army is directed toinitiate a general reevaluation report for theTruckee Meadows Flood Control project, Ne-vada, authorized in the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1988. Of the $400,000 pro-vided in the conference agreement for theLower Truckee River, Nevada, project,$50,000 is appropriated for this investigation.The report will consider additional flood pro-tection at and below Reno, Nevada, throughlevee/channel improvements, local impound-ments, and potential reoperation of existingreservoirs in the watershed. The report willalso consider the potential for environ-mental restoration along the Truckee Riverand tributaries in the Reno-Sparks area.

The conference agreement includes $600,000for the Corps of Engineers, in cooperationwith the Bureau of Reclamation, to continuethe feasibility study for lake stabilization inthe Devils Lake Basin of North Dakota asdescribed in Public Law 102–377. The con-ferees expect the Corps of Engineers to expe-dite planning for emergency mitigationmeasures including emergency outlet op-tions to the Sheyenne River, upper basinstorage, and enhanced diking. The Corps ofEngineers shall make its recommendationsto the Congress for upper basin storage andenhanced diking by March 1, 1996, and shallreport on the status of the lake stabilizationstudy by September 30, 1996.

The conference agreement includes $559,000for the Army Corps of Engineers to continuepreconstruction engineering and design forthe Noyo Harbor Breakwater, California,project. The conferees are aware of a pro-posal to utilize prefabricated steel structuresin lieu of a stone breakwater, at consider-ably less cost than the $22,900,000 now pro-jected. Furthermore, the structures can befitted to generate electricity. The potentialfor reduced construction costs, together withthe ancillary benefit of wave power genera-tion, would facilitate local cost sharing. Theconferees, therefore, direct that the funds beutilized for efforts to validate the viabilityof using these structures to serve as break-waters, including modeling.

The conference agreement includes the fol-lowing amounts for Coordination StudiesWith Other Agencies: Cooperation WithOther Agencies, $480,000; Section 22 PlanningAssistance to States, $2,000,000; Special In-vestigations, $3,400,000; Gulf of Mexico Pro-gram, $300,000; Interagency Water ResourcesDevelopment, $1,000,000; National EstuaryProgram, $180,000; North American Water-fowl Management Plan, $180,000; and $380,000for the Pacific Northwest Forest Case Studyas described in the Senate Report.

Within the funds available for the FloodPlain Management Services Program, theconferees have provided $100,000 for a studyalong the Jacks Defeat Creek watershed inMonroe County, Indiana.

The conference agreement includes$30,432,000 for Corps of Engineers researchand development activities. Included in thistotal is $23,732,000 for the Corps’ base re-search and development program; $1,900,000for evaluation of environmental invest-ments; $2,000,000 for earthquake engineering;$1,000,000 for zebra mussel control; $1,500,000for the characterization and restoration ofwetlands; and $300,000 for the continuation ofthe Construction Technology Transfer

Project between the Corps of Engineers’ re-search institutions and Indiana State Uni-versity.

Amendment No. 2: The conference agree-ment includes language providing $375,000 forthe Norco Bluffs, California, project, as pro-vided for in the House and Senate bills; re-stores House language stricken by the Sen-ate for the Ohio River Greenway, Indiana,project amended to provide $500,000 insteadof $1,000,000 as proposed by the House; in-cludes language proposed by the Senate forthe Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky,project amended to provide $2,000,000 insteadof $2,500,000 as proposed by the Senate; re-stores House language stricken by the Sen-ate providing $300,000 for the Mussers Dam,Pennsylvania, project; and includes languageproposed by the Senate providing $300,000 forthe West Virginia Port Development, WestVirginia, project. The conference agreementalso deletes language contained in the Houseand Senate bills providing funds for the Indi-anapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana,project. Funding for this project has been in-cluded under Construction, General.

The conference agreement also includeslanguage for a watershed study in the vicin-ity of Hazard, Kentucky, using previouslyappropriated funds. The Corps of Engineersis directed to prepare a reconnaissance levelstudy addressing flood control, water supplyand water quality needs as well as opportuni-ties for environmental restoration in theUpper Kentucky River basin. In particular,the Corps is directed to evaluate the poten-tial to reallocate excess storage in existingCorps lakes and alternatives thereto, for thepurpose of providing additional water supplycapability to meet expanding regional needs.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Amendment No. 3: Appropriates $804,573,000for Construction, General instead of$807,846,000 as proposed by the House and$778,456,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The conferees understand that the ActingAssistant Secretary of the Army for CivilWorks determined on September 1, 1995, thatthe Army Corps of Engineers will cost sharethe project for design deficiency correctionof the Klamath-Glen Levee in Del NorteCounty, California, under the same financialterms as the original construction. This is inaccordance with the technical conclusions ofthe Initial Appraisal Report of the San Fran-cisco District Engineer, entitled ‘‘TerwerCreek Erosion, Klamath-Glen Levee, Klam-ath River, Del Norte County, California’’,March 1994. In view of this determination,and so that the necessary repairs can beginas quickly as possible, the Secretary of theArmy is directed to utilize funds appro-priated in this or prior appropriations Actsfor the project.

The Corps of Engineers may allocate up to$150,000 of the funds provided for the Centraland Southern Florida Project Review Studyor from other sources, for the purpose of ini-tiating a study to determine whether theconstruction of a wastewater reuse facilityin Dade County, Florida, should be incor-porated within the overall project authoriza-tion upon receipt of necessary approval.Such reuse facility would be intended to in-crease the supply of surface water to the Ev-erglades system and Everglades NationalPark, in turn benefiting recreation and en-hancing fish and wildlife.

The conference agreement includes$78,800,000 for the Columbia River JuvenileFish Mitigation, Washington and Oregon,program as proposed by the Senate insteadof $68,800,000 as proposed by the House. Of thefunds provided, $1,000,000 is available for ad-vanced planning and design for public andprivate facilities affected by the operation ofthe John Day project at minimum pool lev-els. The conferees share the concern of both

the Senate and the House regarding the costsand justification for the John Day drawdownas an effective method for salmon recovery.To date, the conferees have not been pro-vided with any scientific evidence supportingthe drawdown; therefore, the Administrationis directed to provide scientific justificationof the project as an effective means of salm-on recovery along with any further requestsfor funding. Considering the extraordinarycost of completing this project, if the Ad-ministration does not find significant bene-fits, the proposal should be abandoned alto-gether. The conferees also note that themitigation necessary to lower John Day Res-ervoir to minimum operating pool will re-quire specific authorization from Congress.

The conferees understand that rapid andsubstantial improvement in fish passage inthe Federal Columbia River power system isa high priority. Accordingly, the confereesdirect the Secretary of the Army to inde-pendently evaluate annually the perform-ance of the Corps of Engineers in achievingimprovements in fish passage and to providethese evaluations to the Committees on Ap-propriations. The conferees further directthe Corps and the Bonneville Power Admin-istration, in consultation with the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, to develop a set ofrecommendations for improving the systemby which fish passage improvements are de-signed, tested and implemented at the Fed-eral projects. These improvements shouldseek to shorten the time requirements, re-duce the costs, and improve the biologicalsuccess of fish passage projects. The Corpsand BPA should submit these recommenda-tions to the Committees on Appropriationswithin six months of enactment of this Actand should proceed to implement imme-diately reforms for which they have the au-thority.

The Secretary of the Army, acting throughthe Chief of Engineers, is directed to designand construct a Regional Visitors Center inthe vicinity of Shreveport, Louisiana, to pro-vide information to the public on the RedRiver Basin, national and local water re-sources development of the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, and the Red River WaterwayProject. The Regional Visitors Center is tobe constructed using funds appropriated forconstruction of the Red River WaterwayProject, and will be operated and maintainedusing funds appropriated for operation andmaintenance of the waterway.

The conferees wish to emphasize their con-tinued support for the Corps of EngineersContinuing Authorities Programs. Theseprograms, which require only modestamounts of budgetary resources, have provento be of great value and are particularly im-portant to many small communitiesthroughout the Nation. Therefore, the con-ferees direct the Secretary of the Army, act-ing through the Chief of Engineers, to con-tinue the planning, engineering, and designof projects under all of the continuing au-thorities programs whether or not they willbe approved for construction by the end offiscal year 1996, initiate new projects undernormal procedures for the continuing au-thorities programs, and continue budgetingthese programs in fiscal year 1997 and be-yond.

For the Emergency Streambank and Ero-sion Control (Section 14) program, the con-ferees direct the Corps of Engineers to under-take the projects identified in the House Re-port. In addition, the conference agreementincludes $242,000 for the project to provideerosion protection for the Russell-AllisonLevee along the Wabash River in LawrenceCounty, Illinois, and $325,000 for repair of theOhio River levee in Marietta, Ohio. For theSmall Flood Control Projects (Section 205)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10918 October 26, 1995program, the conferees direct the Corps ofEngineers to undertake the projects identi-fied in the House and Senate Reports. In ad-dition, the conference agreement including$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiateand complete a feasibility study to controlflooding at the town of Sumava Resorts, In-diana, and $65,000 for a feasibility study ofthe Bellepoint floodwall, Frankfort, Ken-tucky, project. For the Small Beach ErosionControl (Section 103) program, the confereesdirect the Corps of Engineers to undertakethe Aqua Hedionda Lagoon project in Carls-bad, California, as described in the House Re-port. For the Project Modifications for theImprovement of the Environment (Section1135) program, the conference agreement in-cludes funds for the projects identified in theHouse Report and also includes $100,000 forthe St. Paul Harbor, Alaska, project and$370,000 for the Valdez Harbor, Alaska,project. For the Small Navigation Projects(Section 107) program, the conference agree-ment includes $1,000,000 for the OuizinkieHarbor, Alaska, project, $500,000 for theLarsen Bay Harbor, Alaska, project, $200,000for the Williamsburg, Alaska project, and$250,000 for the Tatitlik Harbor, Alaska,project.

Amendment No. 4: The conference agree-ment includes language in the bill for thefollowing projects, which were funded at thesame level in the House and Senate bills:Sacramento River Flood Control Project(Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District), California($300,000); Harlan, Kentucky ($12,000,000); Wil-liamsburg, Kentucky ($4,100,000);Middlesboro, Kentucky ($1,600,000);Salyersville, Kentucky ($500,000); Glen Foerd,Pennsylvania ($200,000); Wallisville, Texas($5,000,000); and Red River Emergency Bank.Protection, Arkansas and Louisiana($6,600,000).

The conference agreement restores Houselanguage stricken by the Senate providingfunds for the San Timoteo Creek feature ofthe Santa Ana River Mainstem, California,project ($5,000,000), and the Indiana ShorelineErosion, Indiana, project, ($1,500,000).

The conference agreement provides$13,348,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain andVicinity (Hurricane Protection), Louisiana,project instead of $11,848,000 as proposed bythe House and $11,838,000 as proposed by theSenate, provides $2,500,000 for the Red Riverbelow Denison Dam, Louisiana, Arkansas,and Texas, project instead of $3,800,000 asproposed by the House and $2,000,000 as pro-posed by the Senate; and provides $4,100,000for the Broad Top Region, Pennsylvania,project as proposed by the House instead of$2,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The conference agreement includes lan-guage proposed by the Senate which provides$3,800,000 for repair and extension of theHomer Spit, Alaska, project; provides$6,000,000 for the McClellan-Kerr ArkansasRiver Navigation System, Arkansas, project,of which $4,900,000 is for the MontgomeryPoint Lock and Dam; provides $700,000 forthe Arkansas City, Kansas project andwaives section 902 of Public Law 99–662; pro-vides $670,000 for the Winfield, Kansas,project; provides $2,300,000 for the OuachitaRiver Levees, Louisiana, project; provides$710,000 for the Roughans Point, Massachu-setts, project; provides $850,000 for the Mar-shall, Minnesota, project; provides $1,000,000for the Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, project,provides; $1,100,000 for the Virginia BeachErosion Control and Hurricane Protection,Virginia, project; provides $2,000,000 for theHatfield Bottom, West Virginia, project; pro-vides $2,000,000 for the Upper Mingo, WestVirginia, project; and provides that $1,120,000shall be transferred to the Secretary of theInterior for performing operation and main-tenance activities at the Columbia River

Fishing Access Sites to be constructed in Or-egon and Washington.

The conferees have also included languagein the bill that directs the Secretary of theArmy to acquire all or part of the Little Hol-land Tract in California for wetlands restora-tion and waterfowl and fishery habitat en-hancement and/or mitigation purposes condi-tioned on a determination made by the Sec-retary that acquisition is in the Federal in-terest; and language that provides $3,500,000for the South Central Pennsylvania Environ-mental Restoration project.

The conferees are aware of the need forcontinued emergency construction on theRed River between Index, Arkansas, andShreveport, Louisiana. However, due to bankcaving problems that may be induced by thepreviously funded Sulfur Revetment nowunder construction, the conference agree-ment includes $6,600,000 to initiate and com-plete design and construction of the CanaleRevetment in lieu of the Dickson Revet-ment.

The conferees direct the Secretary of theArmy, acting through the Chief of Engineers,to extend the levee identified in Plan B ofthe approved draft specific project report forWilliamsburg, Kentucky, dated April 1993, byapproximately 2,000 feet upstream usingfunds provided for this project.

For the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity(Hurricane Protection) project, the con-ference agreement includes an additional$4,000,000 to continue construction of parallelprotection along the Orleans and London Av-enue outfall canals, and an additional$1,500,000 for the project to intercept andconvey landside runoff from Jefferson Parishlakefront levees. The conferees agree thatthe landside runoff project is not a separableelement of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vi-cinity (Hurricane Protection) project and di-rect that future budget requests for the LakePontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Pro-tection) project include funding for landsiderunnoff.

The amount provided for the Red Riverbelow Denison Dam project includes $500,000to continue the Bowie County Levee, Texas,portion of the project. The conferees directthe Corps of Engineers to continue to pre-pare plans and specifications for restorationor replacement of the Bowie County Levee asauthorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946for incorporation into the Federal levee sys-tem to provide the same level of protectionas the adjoining Miller County Levee in Ar-kansas under the terms and conditions ofsection 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936,Public Law 74–738.

The funds to be transferred to the Sec-retary of the Interior for Columbia RiverFishing Access Sites provide for the capital-ized operation and maintenance costs forphase I sites. In addition, the conferenceagreement includes $600,000 for engineeringand design of an additional six Bonnevillepool sites planned under phase II.

On September 22, 1995, the Acting Assist-ant Secretary of the Army for Civil Worksadvised the House and Senate Committees ofa proposal to enter into a Section 215 agree-ment with the city of Arkansas City, Kansas,to provide for a credit toward the local con-tribution for certain work to be performedby the city in connection with the author-ized Arkansas City flood control project. Theconferees have no objection to that proposaland the Secretary may immediately executethe agreement with the understanding thatthe credit will not exceed the statutory limitof Section 215 of Public Law 90–483, asamended.

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBU-TARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOU-ISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TEN-NESSEE

Due to the severe budgetary situation, theconference agreement includes; $307,885,000for the Flood Control, Mississippi River andTributaries, project, which is the same asthe amount provided by the House and theSenate and $11,365,000 below the budget re-quest. At the same time, the conferees recog-nize the importance of this project to theNation. The conferees agree that the reduc-tions made to the individual features withinthe Mississippi River and Tributaries projectwere made without prejudice and expect theCorps of Engineers to manage the project, in-cluding the reprogramming of funds wherenecessary, to derive the maximum benefitfrom the funds provided.

The conferees are aware that the Corps ofEngineers no longer requires the use of landsin the Vidalia, Louisiana, area previouslyused for casting and storage of articulatedconcrete mats used for construction of theMississippi River and Tributaries project. Inthe interest of public safety and environ-mental restoration, the conferees direct theCorps of Engineers to use up to $900,000 of thefunds available for the Mississippi River andTributaries project to return lands to accept-able environmental condition now that thecasting operations have ceased.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Amendment No. 5: Appropriates$1,703,697,000 for Operation and Maintenance,General instead of $1,712,123,000 as proposedby the House and $1,696,998,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

The conferees recognize that flooding inthe wake of Typhoon Oscar, which resultedin a Presidential disaster declaration inSouthcentral Alaska, devastated the harborat Seward, Alaska, just as the winter seasonwas approaching. The Corps of Engineers is,therefore, encouraged to expedite work usingavailable funds, including such contractualeconomies of effort with the City of Sewardand the State of Alaska as are necessary inthe judgment of the District Engineer, to re-store full use to the port and port facilitiesimpacted by the flooding.

The conference agreement includes $280,000for the Pearl River, Mississippi and Louisi-ana, project, the same as the budget request.These funds are to be used to maintain theproject in caretaker status and correct anysafety problems, including lighting and boattrolley system improvements, at Pool’s BluffSill and other lock locations.

Upon resolution of the status of the sec-tion 401 permit, the Corps of Engineers mayuse $250,000 of available funds to resume de-sign work on the proposed expansion of theRenard Isle confined disposal facility atGreen Bay Harbor, Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 6: Provides $5,926,000 forthe Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, project asproposed by the House instead of $3,426,000 asproposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 7: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate which directs the Sec-retary of the Army to maintain a minimumconservation pool of 475.5 feet at the WisterLake, Oklahoma, project.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

The conferees agree wit the language con-tained in the House and Senate Reports forthe Regulatory Program of the Corps of En-gineers. In addition, the conferees under-stand that the Corps of Engineers has underreview an application by the City of EastChicago, Indiana, for the construction of abreakwater in Lake Michigan. The confereesexpect the Corps to work with the city to-ward an expeditious resolution to the per-mitting process.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10919October 26, 1995GENERAL EXPENSES

Amendment No. 8: Appropriates $151,500,000for General Expenses instead of $150,000,000as proposed by the House and $153,000,000 asproposed by the Senate and provides that thefunds shall remain available until expendedas proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 9: Restores language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate limiting the funds available for generaladministration and related functions in theOffice of the Chief of Engineers with anamendment providing that not to exceed$62,000,000 shall be available for that purposeinstead of $60,000,000 as proposed by theHouse.

Amendment No. 10: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate which provides that theplan for reducing the number of division of-fices which the Secretary of the Army is di-rected to develop and submit to the Congressshall be submitted to the Committee on En-vironment and Public Works of the Senateand the Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure of the House of Representa-tives and amends language contained in theHouse and Senate bills which provides thatthe division office plan shall not change thefunction of any district office by adding thewords ‘‘any civil’’ before ‘‘function’’. Thisamendment is necessary to clarify that it isnot the intent of the conferees to prohibitthe Corps of Engineers from making nec-essary adjustments in mission and functionof districts handling military constructionto accommodate the shrinking militaryworkload.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Amendment No. 11: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate which provides that the Corps of Engi-neers shall advertise for competitive bid atleast 7,500,000 cubic yards of the hopperdredge volume accomplished with Govern-ment-owned dredges in fiscal year 1992 andwhich further provides that none of thefunds available to the Corps of Engineersmay be used to undertake improvements ormajor repair of the hopper dredge McFAR-LAND and inserts similar language proposedby the Senate. The Senate language differsfrom the House language in that it permitsthe Corps of Engineers to expend funds tomaintain the McFARLAND’s current oper-ational condition and in that it includes anadditional subsection relating to the use ofthe four Corps of Engineers hopper dredges,which has been amended by the conferenceagreement to provide that if any of theCorps’ hopper dredges is removed from nor-mal service for repair or rehabilitation, theSecretary of the Army shall not signifi-cantly alter the operating schedules of theremaining dredges.

Amendment No. 12: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate which provides that

none of the funds appropriated in this Act orotherwise available to the Corps of Engineersmay be used for activities associated withmoving the Corps’ headquarters office to theSoutheast Federal Center with an amend-ment which clarifies that this limitation onthe use of funds does not apply to the use offunds required to process any Department ofthe Army permits, and makes technical cor-rections to Section 102, which modifies theauthorization for the Manistique Harbor,Michigan, project.

Amendment No. 13: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate which modifies the au-thorization for the Petersburg, West Vir-ginia, project by increasing the total esti-mated cost to $26,600,000, with an estimatedfirst Federal cost of $19,195,000 and an esti-mated first non-Federal cost of $7,405,000.

Amendment No. 14: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate which authorizes theSecretary of the Army to accept from a non-Federal sponsor additional lands, not to ex-ceed 300 acres, at the Cooper Lake and Chan-nels, Texas, project and further authorizesthe Secretary, upon acceptance of thoselands, to redesignate an amount of mitiga-tion lands, not to exceed 300 acres, to recre-ation purposes. The amendment also pro-vides that the lands accepted from the non-Federal sponsor shall provide habitat valueat least equal to that provided by the landsredesignated to recreation purposes and thatall costs of work to be undertaken pursuantto the amendment shall be borne by the do-nating sponsor.

Amendment No. 15: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate which directs the Sec-retary of the Army to take such actions asare necessary to obtain and maintain an ele-vation of 977 feet above sea level at the LakeTraverse, South Dakota and Minnesota,project and inserts the new sections de-scribed below.

Section 106 authorizes the Secretary of theArmy to undertake the Indianapolis, Indi-ana, project authorized by Section 5 of Pub-lic Law 74–738 as modified to include certainriverfront alterations as described in theCorps of Engineers Central Indianapolis Wa-terfront Concept Master Plan, dated Feb-ruary, 1994. Non-Federal funds expended onor after the date of the Corps of Engineersreport on items and outlined for construc-tion in the Corps’ document shall be appliedto the non-Federal cost-sharing require-ments.

Section 107 modifies section 313 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1992,the South Central Pennsylvania Environ-mental Restoration Infrastructure and Re-source Protection Development Pilot Pro-gram. The modification includes changes tothe consultation requirements to reflect arevised geographic scope, an increase in theauthorized funding level, and several tech-nical changes. The conferees have also in-cluded $3,500,000 under the Construction,

General account to accomplish high prioritywork under the section 313 authority.

Section 108 authorizes and directs the Sec-retary of the Army to proceed with engineer-ing, design, and construction of projects toprovide for flood control and improvementsto rainfall drainage systems in Jefferson, Or-leans, and St. Tammany Parishes in Louisi-ana. The conferees are aware of the disas-trous floods due to torrential rainfalls thatoccurred in southeast Louisiana in May of1995, which resulted in the loss of seven lives,inundation of over 35,000 homes, and esti-mated property and infrastructure losses ex-ceeding $3,000,000,000. This event producedthe second highest number of flood insuranceclaims ever for a flood event. In addition, be-tween 1978 and 1989, flood insurance claimsfor this area totaled $227,000,000. Therefore,because of the urgent need to prevent suchdisasters from recurring, the conferees havedirected the Secretary of the Army to pro-ceed immediately with economically justi-fied flood control improvements that havebeen identified in reports of the Corps of En-gineers’ New Orleans District Engineer. Nofurther feasibility studies are required forthe projects authorized in this section. Theconferees intend that the cost-sharing re-quirement. Between the Federal and non-Federal interests be consistent with the pro-visions for flood control and hurricane pro-tection projects, as appropriate, in the WaterResources Development Act of 1986, exceptthat the non-Federal sponsor shall receivecredit, as part of the non-Federal share ofthe cost of these projects, for any work ac-complished subsequent to those reports asdetermined by the Secretary of the Army tobe a compatible and integral part of theprojects. The projects include, but are notlimited to, pumping station and channel im-provements in Jefferson and Orleans Par-ishes, channel improvements along MileCreek in Covington, hurricane protectionalong the Lake Pontchartrain shoreline inMandeville, and hurricane protection andimproved drainage in the Schneider Canalarea in Slidell. An amount of $25,000,000 hasbeen authorized for the Corps to proceedwith work on these projects.

Section 109 directs the Secretary of theArmy to convey land at the Dewey Lake,Kentucky, project to the City ofPrestonburg, Kentucky, for the developmentof public use recreational facilities and tofurther regional economic development.

Amendment No. 16: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate which authorizes theSecretary of the Army to undertake the CoosBay, Oregon, project in accordance with theReport of the Chief of Engineers, dated June30, 1994, at a total cost of $14,541,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $10,777,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $3,764,000, andchanges the section number.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10920 October 26, 1995

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10921October 26, 1995

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10949October 26, 1995TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

The summary tables at the end of this titleset forth the conference agreement with re-spect to the individual appropriations, pro-grams and activities of the Bureau of Rec-lamation. Additional items of conferenceagreement are discussed below.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Amendment No. 17: Appropriates $12,684,000for General Investigations instead of$13,114,000 as proposed by the House and$11,234,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 18: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate providing $300,000 for thecompletion of the feasibility study of alter-natives for meeting drinking water needs onthe Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation andsurrounding communities in South Dakota.Funding for this project ($150,000) is includedin the amount appropriated in AmendmentNo. 17.

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Amendment No. 19: Appropriates$411,046,000 for Construction Program insteadof $417,301,000 as proposed by the House and$390,461,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The conference agreement includes$12,069,000 for Miscellaneous Project Pro-grams of the Central Valley Project, Califor-nia, which includes $200,000 for the SalmonStamp Program as described in the HouseReport, $250,000 for the Colusa Basin Drain-age District Management Project, and$5,750,000 for the unscreened diversions pro-gram, which is $250,000 less than the budgetrequest.

The conferees have provided $6,540,000 forthe Sacramento River Division of theCentral Valley Project, California. Theamount provided includes: $3,000,000 for thecompletion of engineering and design andinitiation of construction of a new fishscreen and fish recovery facilities at theGlenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s HamiltonCity Pumping Plant; $1,000,000 for the con-tinuation of the pilot research pumping fa-cility evaluation; $500,000 for the program tofind solutions for passage for endangered andthreatened fish at the Red Bluff DiversionDam; $865,000 for the installation and evalua-tion of alternative fish guidance systems atReclamation District 108 and ReclamationDistrict 1004; and $300,000 for the Winter-RunChinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Pro-gram.

The conference agreement includes$5,067,000 for the Trinity River RestorationProgram, California, the same as the budgetrequest and the amount provided in theHouse and Senate bills. Included in this totalis $500,000 to carry out the interagencyagreement between the Bureau of Reclama-tion and the Hoopa Valley Tribe regardingthe Cooperative for Comprehensive FisheriesManagement and funds necessary to com-plete the Environmental Impact Statementis support of the instream flow decision theSecretary of the Interior is required torender in 1996.

On July 17, 1995, one of the eight spillwaygates at Folsom Dam in California failed re-sulting in an uncontrolled flow of 40,000cubic feet per second of water from the res-ervoir. The total loss of water was about360,000 acre-feet, which is approximately 35%of total reservoir capacity. The conferees areaware that the Bureau of Reclamation hasbegun work to design a replacement for thedamaged gate, with the goal of having the

replacement gate installed in 1996. Becauseof the timing of this event, no funds were in-cluded in either the House bill or the Senatebill to accomplish this work. The confereesagree that the Bureau of Reclamation mayreprogram up to $6,000,000 of the funds avail-able to it in fiscal year 1996, upon notifica-tion of the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees, for the removal and replace-ment of the damaged gate and the remedi-ation of the remaining spillway gates at Fol-som Dam. If additional funds are required infiscal year 1996 to complete the work, theBureau of Reclamation should request thosefunds following the normal reprogrammingprocedures.

On August 22, 1995, the Department of theInterior submitted to the House and Senatesubcommittees a request to reprogram$5,000,000 to the Los Angeles Area Water Rec-lamation and Reuse, California, project. Be-cause of the unanticipated funding needswhich have arisen, including the need to re-pair Folsom Dam in California and the needto make additional dam safety repairs atOchoco Dam in Oregon, the conferees haveagreed to defer, without prejudice, action onthis reprogramming request.

The conference agreement includes$1,500,000 for the National Fish and WildlifeFoundation as proposed by the Senate. TheHouse had deleted the funds requested by theAdministration for this program. Within theamounts provided for the National Fish andWildlife Foundation, $500,000 shall be madeavailable to support the Spring Run andCoho Salmon Programs approved by theHouse under the Central Valley Project, Mis-cellaneous Project Programs, California, and$100,000 shall be made available to supportthe Kaweah River Delta Corridor Project.The conferees are concerned about certaingrants that have been made by the NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation to organiza-tions known to be hostile to the interests ofprivate landowners and those engaged in theproductive and lawful use of public lands.The conferees have included the fundingcited above for the Foundation based uponthe understanding that its grant award pro-cedures have been considerably tightened,and that the Foundation will make a con-certed effort to avoid making further grantsto the types of organizations describedabove. The Foundation’s performance in thisregard will be closely monitored by the Com-mittees during the coming year.

The conference agreement includes$5,000,000 for the Wetlands Development Pro-gram. From within that amount, the con-ferees direct that $3,600,000 be utilized tocontinue the Caddo Lake wetlands project inTexas.

The conferees agree with the language con-tained in the House Report regarding theRillito Creek, Arizona, High Plains Ground-water Recharge Demonstration project. Inaddition, the conference agreement includes$500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation tocontinue the Equus Beds recharge project inKansas.

Amendment No. 20: Provides that$94,225,000 of the funds appropriated underthe Construction Program shall be availablefor transfer to the Lower Colorado RiverBasin Development Fund for construction ofthe Central Arizona Project as proposed bythe House instead of $92,725,000 as proposedby the Senate.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Amendment No. 21: Appropriates$273,076,000 for Operation and Maintenance

instead of $278,759,000 as proposed by theHouse and $267,393,000 as proposed by theSenate.

Due to the budgetary situation, the con-ferees have provided $273,076,000 for the Bu-reau of Reclamation’s operation and mainte-nance program, which is $15,683,000 below thebudget request and $1,224,000 below theamount appropriated in fiscal year 1995. Theconferees expect the Bureau of Reclamationto use the flexibility available to it in man-aging the operation and maintenance pro-gram to ensure that the most critical main-tenance needs are met. In that regard, theconferees agree with the language containedin the House Report regarding the growth inthe Associated Operation and MaintenanceProgram and expect the Bureau of Reclama-tion to derive a significant share of the re-duction below the budget request from thevarious Associated O&M Programs in orderto retain as much money as possible for op-eration and maintenance of projects.

The conferees note that the backlog in re-placements, additions, and extraordinarymaintenance items continues to grow for theCentral Valley Project in California. In addi-tion, the conferees are concerned that theBureau of Reclamation has failed to complywith the directive to submit a plan, by Feb-ruary of 1995, for reducing the backlog in re-placements, additions, and extraordinarymaintenance items in a timely manner anddirect that this previously requested plan besubmitted as soon as possible. The con-ference agreement does include $4,625,000 forreplacements, additions, and extraordinarymaintenance items, the same as the budgetrequest. The conferees urge the Bureau ofReclamation to continue its efforts to reachconsensus with the canal authorities on themanner that those funds are allocated. Theconference agreement also includes $5,454,000for operation and maintenance of the TrinityRiver Division. The amount provided in-cludes sufficient funds to continue to mon-itoring and tagging tasks, repair of winterdamage, and sediment control needed forcontinued management of the Trinity Riverfishery.

The conferees have been informed thatlandowners and farmers suffered flooding anddestruction of crops in March 1995 from wa-ters of the Arroyo Pasajaro in Fresno Coun-ty, California. The waters were diverted fromthe San Luis Canal, jointly operated by theBureau of Reclamation and the State of Cali-fornia. The conferees direct the Bureau toevaluate the damage and report back to Con-gress on whether Federal responsibility is in-volved and if steps should be taken to pro-vide compensation to those suffering dam-age.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

The conferees direct that the $1,000,000 re-quested for the San Joaquin River Basin Re-source Management Initiative, and any fundsremaining from previous fiscal years, not beexpended for that purpose. This action isconsistent with action of the Congress dur-ing consideration of H.R. 1158. In the reportsaccompanying that bill, the Bureau of Rec-lamation was directed not to obligate anyadditional funds in fiscal year 1995 for theSan Joaquin River Basin Resource Manage-ment Initiative.

The conference agreement includes$12,281,000 for the Shasta Dam TemperatureControl Device, $1,000,000 above the budgetrequest.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10954 October 26, 1995TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The summary tables at the end of this titleset forth the conference agreement with re-spect to the individual appropriations, pro-grams, and activities of the Department ofEnergy. Additional items of conferenceagreements are discussed below.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

The Department of Energy has announceda strategic alignment initiative which wouldreduce the number of Federal employees by27 percent over five years. The Departmenthas provided a summary of recommendedemployment levels and proposed reductionsby organization for fiscal year 1996. The con-ferees expect the Department to make theseproposed employment reductions in thoseareas where the conference agreement doesnot reduce employment levels below thoserequested by the Department. The Depart-ment is to report to the Committees on Ap-propriations the actual employment levelsas of March 1996 compared to the fiscal year1995 baseline and the Department’s proposedemployment levels.

SUPPORT SERVICE CONTRACTORS

The conferees are aware of the extensiveuse of support service contractors by the De-partment of Energy at headquarters and thefield offices. In many instances these con-tractors are performing inherently govern-mental functions such as assisting in pro-gram management and program executionduties, representing program organizationsat meetings inside and outside the Depart-ment, preparing briefing materials, news-letters, and budget justifications, and pro-viding daily administrative and clerical sup-port.

There are clearly instances where it iscost-effective to use support service contrac-tors to support Federal programs. Thiswould include functions such as custodialservices, guard services, operation of emer-gency communications centers and mailrooms, and facility and grounds mainte-nance. In addition to these types of commer-cial services, there are situations wheretechnical expertise is needed to augmentFederal efforts. These technical serviceswould include such tasks as automated dataprocessing systems development for the De-partment’s corporate financial, procure-ment, and personnel systems, systems reviewand reliability analyses, and economic andenvironmental analyses. These tasks arecharacterized by specific project schedules,milestones, and deliverables.

The conferees have no objection to con-tinuing support service contracts which canbe documented to be cost-effective and whichprovide specific technical expertise notavailable in the Federal work force at theDepartment. However, the Department hasincreasingly used support service contrac-tors to augment the Federal work force fornonspecific functions. This may be done tocircumvent Federal employment ceilings orfunding constraints or because it is easier tohire an outside contractor than to manageproperly the existing Federal work force.

After excluding those support service con-tracts which are documented to reflect thecost benefits of contracting for the service,and those contracts which provide specifictechnical expertise tied to a schedule and adeliverable, the conferees expect funding forall other support service contracts to de-crease by 50 percent in fiscal year 1996. Allother categories of support service contractsshould be reduced by 15 percent in accord-ance with the Department’s strategic align-ment initiative. The Department is directedto submit semi-annual reports on the use ofall support services contracts at head-

quarters and the field. By organization, ap-propriation, and program, this report shouldinclude the name of the contractor, fiscalyear 1996 funding, number of employers, anda brief description of the work performed.

DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Department does not budget for Fed-eral employees in a consistent mannerthroughout the whole organization. Usingexisting budget justification materials, it isdifficult to determine where each Depart-ment of energy employee is located and thecosts associated with each. To alleviatethese discrepancies, in the fiscal year 1997budget request the Department is directed toinclude all salaries and related expenses inthe program that manages the employee. Inaddition to salaries and benefits, the person-nel cost for each employee should include allrelated costs such as space rental, utilities,materials and supplies, telecommunications,and building maintenance. The administra-tive services group will determine theamount of these costs which should becharged to each program organization to en-sure consistency in budgeting.

Within each appropriation account, eachorganization should have one program direc-tion line for all full-time equivalent employ-ees (FTEs), both field and headquarters, andprovide object class information for all ex-penses. No Federal employees are to be fund-ed in program accounts. Any difference be-tween the average cost of the fully loadedFTE between specific programs should be ex-plained in the budget justification.ENERGY SUPPLY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITIES

Amendment No. 22: Appropriates$2,727,407,000 for Energy Supply, Researchand Development Activities instead of$2,576,700,000 (less $1,000,000) as proposed bythe House and $2,793,324,000 as proposed bythe Senate, and deletes language proposed bythe Senate providing no more than $7,500,000for termination of the Gas Turbine-ModularHelium Reactor program.

SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

Funding of $2,000,000 for the solar inter-national program is to be allocated to non-governmental organizations which are activein joint implementation activities to developspecific international energy projects.

Funding of $400,000 is provided to study thefeasibility of piping treated effluent fromSanta Rosa to the Geysers for injection.

The conferees have provided $55,300,000 forbiofuels energy systems. An amount of$27,650,000 is allocated for the categories ofbiochemical and thermochemical conversion,of which $3,000,000 is for the Federal share ofa 50/50 cost-shared biomass ethanol produc-tion plant in Gridley, California, and theamount also includes the request for capitalequipment. With the remaining funds, theconferees support and fully fund the biomasspower projects in Vermont and Hawaii, andhave provided from the remainder of avail-able funds $3,940,000 for the regional biomassprogram.

The conferees have not provided fundingfor the ocean thermal energy systems pro-gram, now technical assistance and othersupport for the Kotzebue, Alaska, project fora wind energy system.

Within the total funding provided for solarenergy, the conferees have included$2,988,000, the same as the budget request, forthe renewable energy production incentive(REPI) program. The conferees urge the De-partment to fully fund both tier 1 and tier 2projects as outlined in its recently publishedregulations. REPI program funding shall beavailable only for so long as the tax creditfor electricity produced from certain renew-able sources or the energy investment credit

for solar and geothermal property (author-ized by sections 1914 and 1916 of the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992, respectively) remain in ef-fect.

Within funds available for hydrogen re-search, $250,000 shall be made available to aninstitution where expertise in electro-chemical (fuel cells), thermochemical andphotochemical reactions for hydrogen pro-duction may be synergistically studied andthe application to gas storage and alternatevehicle technology may be integrated.

The conferees have provided $1,500,000 forthe hydropower program which includesfunding to support the cost-shared programto develop an advanced energy-efficient tur-bine which reduces environmental impactson fish species.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

The conferees realize that sufficient fund-ing has not been provided to complete alltasks as proposed in the Department’s budg-et request for the advanced light water reac-tor program. Therefore, the conferees urgethe Department to apply funds within thelight water reactor program to cost-effec-tively complete essential activities.

Termination funding of $7,500,000, the sameas the budget request, has been provided forthe orderly close-out of the gas turbine-mod-ular helium reactor program. An orderlyclose-out shall include only the summarydocumentation of existing technical dataand information. All design, development,and test programs shall be terminated.

The conference agreement provides$25,000,000 for electrometallurgical researchand development in the technology develop-ment program for Defense EnvironmentalRestoration and Waste Management. As rec-ommended by the National Academy ofSciences’ assessment of theelectrometallurgical approach for treatingspent nuclear fuel, the conferees expect theDepartment to develop a plan to support theEBR–II demonstration using this technology.If this is successful, the Department shouldreview the program for application to othertypes of spent fuel and waste managementissues.

No funding for the Soviet-designed reactorsafety program is included in the EnergySupply, Research and Development appro-priation account. Funding for this activityhas been included in the Other Defense Ac-tivities appropriation account.

ISOTOPES

The conferees agree to provide a total of$3,000,000—$1,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 in ad-dition to $2,000,000 from funds appropriatedfor this purpose in fiscal year 1995—to con-tinue development of the National Bio-medical Tracer Facility (NBTF). This fund-ing should be used to acquire three site spe-cific conceptual designs from among thestrongest submissions received during theproject definition study. Additionally, theDepartment should assess all permanent orinterim upgrade NBTF proposals, includingany from national laboratories, according toa consistent set of evaluation criteria in-cluding the capacity to produce a wide rangeof isotopes for medical and research pur-poses; research, technology transfer, edu-cation and training capabilities; and overallcost effectiveness considering lifetime costsof the facility as well as public-private part-nerships and cost-sharing by state and localpartners.

The conferees support using up to $750,000of available funds within this account forcompletion of the Hanford medical isotopesbusiness planning and program developmentproject.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10955October 26, 1995ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Radiation Effects Research Founda-tion (RERF) is a private foundation co-fund-ed by the governments of the United Statesand Japan to study the effects of radiationon the survivors of the Hiroshima and Naga-saki bombings. Since 1946, the NationalAcademy of Sciences has provided supportand oversight of scientific research on theconsequences of the acute radiation expo-sures suffered by the population of these twocities, pursuant to an international agree-ment that co-funds activities at a 50–50 costshare, but this work has been threatened bythe dramatically declining value of the dol-lar versus the yen. The conferees direct theAdministration to continue to work with theNational Academy of Sciences to achieve ad-ditional cost savings in this program andwith the Japanese government to reviewareas for cost savings to reflect U.S. budg-etary constraints. The appropriate commit-tees should be informed of any fundingchanges before they become effective.

The conferees are also interested in the as-sessment of the continuing effectiveness andvalue of this program that is being con-ducted by a scientific committee jointly ap-pointed by the U.S. and Japanese govern-ments, and expect the Department to reviewthe continued funding for this activity andreport to the appropriate Congressional com-mittees prior to hearings on the fiscal year1997 budget and upon completion of theinternational scientific committee’s review.

ENERGY RESEARCH

Biological and environmental researchThe conferees support the important work

conducted at the Inhalation Toxicology Re-search Institute. The conferees further un-derstand that the Institute is reviewing waysto reduce its operating costs to the Depart-ment of Energy and to increase access to itsfacilities by other Federal and non-Federalentities having research needs. The confereessupport these efforts to reduce costs and tomeet both Federal and non-Federal needsand requirements.

Any general reductions to this accountshould be allocated equitably across all pro-gram elements without terminating any pro-grams unilaterally.Fusion

The conferees have provided $244,144,000, anincrease of $15,000,000 over the House rec-ommendation, for the fusion energy pro-gram. This funding is to support a programin plasma science and fusion technology, andcontinue United States participation in theengineering design activities phase of theInternational Thermonuclear ExperimentalReactor project to which the United Statesis committed through fiscal year 1998. Theconferees do not agree with the Senate lan-guage which recommended transferring com-puter work, termination, severance and sepa-ration costs to other activities within theDepartment, and transferring the heavy ionfusion program to defense activities.

With little prospect for increased fundingfor the fusion base program over the nextseveral years, it will be necessary for theprogram to restructure its strategy, contentand near-to-medium-term objectives. The re-structured program should emphasize con-tinued development of fusion science, in-creased attention to concept improvementand alternative approaches to fusion, and de-velopment and testing of the low-activationstructural materials so important for fu-sion’s attractiveness as an energy source.

The Department of Energy, with participa-tion of the fusion community and the FusionEnergy Advisory Committee, is instructed toprepare a strategic plan to implement such arestructured program, to be completed byDecember 31, 1995. This plan should assume a

constant level of effort in the base programfor the next several years; as appropriate, itshould be integrated with plans of the inter-national fusion program; and it should ad-dress the institutional makeup of a domesticprogram consistent with the funding as-sumptions.

The conferees believe that, because of thestringent budget realities facing this Nation,the promise of fusion energy can only be re-alized through international collaboration.The high cost of fusion development pointsto the increasing importance of inter-national cooperation as a means of design-ing, building, and financing major magneticfusion facilities in the future. Because theUnited States has committed to such an ap-proach, it is crucial that a restructuring ofthe fusion program maintain a strong domes-tic base and not undermine our credibility asa reliable international partner.Basic energy sciences

The conferees make no recommendationwith regard to the siting of the new spall-ation source project. The Department of En-ergy shall make that determination in a fairand unbiased manner. The conferees directthe Department of Energy to evaluate oppor-tunities to upgrade existing reactors andspallation sources as cost-effective means ofproviding neutrons in the near term for thescientific community while the next genera-tion source is developed. This evaluationshall be available prior to the AppropriationsCommittee’s hearings on the Department’sfiscal year 1997 budget submission.

For purposes for reprogrammings duringfiscal year 1996, funding may be reallocatedby the Department among all operating ac-counts in basic energy sciences other thanprogram direction.Other energy research activities

The conferees agree that to the extentnonprogram specific general plant projectsand general plant equipment are required forthe Oak Ridge National Laboratory and theOak Ridge Institute for Science and Edu-cation, they are to be funded within theBasic Energy Science and Biological and En-vironmental Research programs, respec-tively.

The conference agreement provides$18,000,000 for the laboratory technologytransfer program. Within this funding, up to$1,500,000 is available for severance costs for17 current employees. The conferees rec-ommend that the Department identify andcomplete the most promising cooperative re-search and development agreements duringfiscal year 1996.

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

University science and education programsThe conferees have provided $20,000,000 for

this portion of the Department’s science andeducation activities. None of the funds inthis account may be used for salaries and ex-penses other than up to $1,100,000 which isavailable for severance costs for the 27 em-ployees currently managing this program.

In addition to this individual program, theDepartment of Energy spends will over$100,000,000 throughout all programs to sup-port science and education activities. Theconferees continue to support science andeducation activities funded directly by pro-grams and which have a direct correlation toprogrammatic needs. The conferees do notagree to fund a separate bureaucracy set upto manage only a small portion of thescience and education activities of the De-partment. In fiscal year 1996, these activitiesare to be managed by the Office of EnergyResearch as they were from 1977 to 1993. Inthat way, this science and education pro-gram will be closely coupled with the De-partment’s research programs, and the num-ber of employees needed to support the pro-gram will be significantly reduced.

The conference agreement does not containspecific funding directions for science andeducation activities, but urges the Depart-ment to consider the views express in theSenate report. The conferees also encouragethe Secretary of Energy to enter into anagreement with a qualified minority wom-en’s model institution of excellence to sup-port curriculum development, research,training and other activities related to en-ergy research and environmental restorationand waste management.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTEMANAGEMENT

(NON–DEFENSE)

The conferees agree with the House reportlanguage on the Wayne, New Jersey project.

INDIAN ENERGY RESOURCES

From within available funds for the En-ergy Supply, Research and Development ap-propriation account, $8,600,000 is provided forIndian energy resources. The funding shouldbe allocated to provide $6,100,000 for contin-ued preconstruction activities for the Navajotransmission project, and $2,000,000 for theHaida Alaska Native Village Corporation’sReynolds Creek hydroelectric project. Theconference agreement includes $500,000 forthe Crow Energy Project, instead of $2,000,000as proposed by the Senate. The Departmentis encouraged to work through the WesternArea Technology Center In Butte, Montana,to provide any and all assistance in makingthe Crow energy project a success.

Amendment No. 23: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate providing that withinavailable funds $56,000,000 may be availableto continue operation of the Tokamak Fu-sion Test Reactor.

Amendment No. 24: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate providing that withinthe amount for Indian Energy Resourceprojects, $2,000,000 may be made available tofund the Crow energy resources programs.

Amendment No. 25: Deletes language pro-posed by the House providing $44,772,000 toimplement provisions of section 1211 of theEnergy Policy Act of 1992.

Amendment No. 26: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate allocating additionalfunds for renewable energy resources and re-ducing departmental administration fund-ing.

URANIUM SUPPLY AND ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES

The conference agreement adjusts the allo-cation of funding for implementation of thedepleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders andmaintenance program. These adjustmentswill accelerate cleaning and painting of cor-roded cylinders at the three gaseous diffu-sion plant sites and construction of a newcylinder storage yard. These activities havebeen accommodated by reallocating fundingprovided in the House and Senate rec-ommendations.

GENERAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Amendment No. 27: Appropriates$981,000,000 for General Science and ResearchActivities instead of $991,000,000 as proposedby the House and $971,000,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FUND

Amendment No. 28: Appropriates$151,600,000 as proposed by the Senate insteadof $226,600,000 as proposed by the House anddeletes language proposed by the Senate thatauthorizes construction of an interim stor-age facility for spent nuclear fuel.

The conferees agree on the importance ofcontinuing the existing scientific work atYucca Mountain to determine the ultimatefeasibility and licensability of the perma-nent repository at that site. The conferees

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10956 October 26, 1995direct the Department to refocus the reposi-tory program on completing the core sci-entific activities at Yucca Mountain. TheDepartment should complete excavation ofthe necessary portions of the exploratorytunnel and the scientific tests needed to as-sess the performance of the repository. Itshould defer preparation and filing of a li-cense application for the repository with theNuclear Regulatory Commission until a laterdate. The Department’s goal should be tocollect the scientific information needed todetermine the suitability of the YuccaMountain site and to complete a conceptualdesign for the repository and waste packagefor later submission to the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Weapons activitiesAmendment No. 29: Appropriates

$3,460,314,000 for Weapons Activities insteadof $3,273,014,000 as proposed by the House and$3,751,719,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The conference agreement provides$1,078,403,000 for core stockpile stewardshipactivities which includes and additional$40,000,000 for the accelerated strategic com-puting initiative (ASCI). The conferees alsosupport the enhanced surveillance and dualrevalidation programs.

Funding of $37,400,000, the same as thebudget request, is provided for project 96–D–111, the National Ignition Facility. Fullfunding for all inertial confinement fusionprogram participants is provided as re-quested in the Department’s budget jus-tification.

The conference agreement provides an in-crease of $106,000,000 over the House rec-ommendation for stockpile management toprovide for enhanced stockpile surveillance,advanced manufacturing, and core stockpilemanagement activities. However, the con-ferees believe it is premature to initiatelong-term capital improvements in advanceof the outcome of the stockpile stewardship/management programmatic environmentalimpact statement process currently under-way. The conferees have not provided spe-cific site funding, but support fundamentalinitiatives in advanced manufacturing, andadditional emphasis on advanced computer-ized manufacturing and dual revalidationtechniques.

The conferees have provided $115,000,000 forprogram direction activities. The confereessupport the liquefied gaseous spill test facil-ity and the facility’s modeling support cen-ter under the Department’s emergency man-agement program funded in the Other De-fense Activities appropriation account.

The conference agreement includes the useof $209,744,000 in prior year balances, an in-crease of $123,400,000 over the budget requestwhich included the use of $86,344,000.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ANDWASTE MANAGEMENT

Amendment No. 30: Appropriates$5,557,532,000 for Defense Environmental Res-toration and Waste Management instead of$5,265,478,000 a proposed by the House and$5,989,750,000 as proposed by the Senate.

The tables accompanying this conferenceagreement reallocate funding for severalconstruction projects as requested by the De-partment to reflect the most recent pro-grammatic and site assumptions for fiscalyear 1996 activities.

Budget reductions should be taken in thoseareas which will have the least impact on on-going cleanup activities. The conferees seekto the extent possible to protect funding nec-essary to meet the cleanup milestones estab-lished in compliance agreements with otherFederal agencies, states, and local agencies,by directing the cuts against support servicecontracts, excessive Headquarters and field

oversight, large uncosted balances, and byreducing other Department administrativeexpenses such as travel.

The conferees direct that, to the maximumextent practicable, funding reductions betaken against Headquarters personnel andactivities. Headquarters employees should bereviewing and auditing field and contractoractivities and holding the contractors re-sponsible for meeting performance goals andmilestones, not micromanaging each step ofthe process from Headquarters through thefinancial plan process and activity datasheets. A critical review of Headquarters’ ap-proval processes for various activities wouldyield a wealth of non-value added adminis-trative steps which serve primarily to delay,prolong, and diffuse responsibility for directand timely cleanup activities. Thus, the con-ferees expect funding for Headquarters’ orga-nizations to be severely curtailed during exe-cution of the fiscal year 1996 program.

The conferees also believe that legislativereforms in the Department’s cleanup pro-gram are long overdue, and will work withthe legislative committees to ensure thatsignificant changes are made in the cleanupprogram.

The Department has indicated that the en-vironmental management organization plansto hire an additional 315 Federal employeesin fiscal year 1996. The conferees do notagree with this strategy. Every witness out-side of the Department who testified on thisprogram stated that one of the managementproblems was too many employees. While theconferees are sympathetic that the programmay not have the correct mix of technicalskills in the current work force, they are notamenable to the concept of hiring 10% moreemployees for this program in fiscal year1996. Thus, the Department is directed not toexceed the current Federal employee ceilingand hire new employees only as current em-ployees leave.

The conference agreement provides$1,635,973,000 for environmental restoration.An additional $60,000,000 has been provided toaccelerate cleanup activities and reduce cur-rent landlord costs and outyear funding re-quirements. The conferees strongly supportefforts at sites such as Fernald, Ohio, andRocky Flats, Colorado, which have developeddetailed plans to expedite cleanup actionsand reduce costs to the taxpayer.

The conferees are in agreement with theSenate recommendation to accelerate cer-tain activities at the Idaho National Engi-neering Laboratory. Within the waste man-agement account, funding is provided forpreconstruction activities such as design andengineering work on additional capacity fordry storage of spent nuclear fuel and an ad-vanced mixed waste treatment facility. Theconference agreement also provides fundingof $42,000,000 for project 96–D–406, the nuclearfuel canister storage building and stabiliza-tion facility in Richland, Washington.

The conferees agree with the concern ex-pressed by the Senate that the Departmentis not providing sufficient attention and re-sources to longer term basic science researchwhich needs to be done to ultimately reducecleanup costs. The current technology devel-opment program continues to favor near-term applied research efforts while failing toutilize the existing basic research infrastruc-ture within the Department and the Office ofEnergy Research. As a result of this, the con-ferees direct that at least $50,000,000 of thetechnology development funding provided tothe environmental management program infiscal year 1996 be managed by the Office ofEnergy Research and used to develop a pro-gram that takes advantage of laboratory anduniversity expertise. This funding is to beused to stimulate the required basic re-search, development and demonstration ef-

forts to seek new and innovative cleanupmethods to replace current conventional ap-proaches which are often costly and ineffec-tive.

In the technology development program,$25,000,000 has been provided forelectrometallurgical research and develop-ment. The conferees have also included suffi-cient funding for the Department to preparea report on the potential of usingpentaborane for environmental remediationor other uses, the estimated costs of the ef-fort, and potential advantages and disadvan-tages of the proposal. The Department’s ac-tivities in this area are to be confined to thepreparation of this report.

The conferees expect the Department to di-rect more resources toward activities sur-rounding storage, treatment, and disposal ofspent nuclear fuel currently stored at De-partment of Energy sites.

The conferees fully support the mission ofthe Hazardous Materials Training Center atthe Hanford site in Richland, Washington,and direct the Department to adequatelyfund the requested operating budget fromthe compliance and coordination account.

The conferees understand the need for eco-nomic development funding to support localcommunities adversely impacted by Depart-ment of Energy programs and to transitioncommunities which have lost jobs due to pro-grammatic changes at facilities, but are con-cerned that cleanup funds are being used foreconomic development activities. With thatunderstanding, the conferees have provided$82,500,000 in the worker and communitytransition program under other Defense Ac-tivities which was established and author-ized to fund such activities, and expect alleconomic development activities to be fund-ed from that program.

The conference agreement provides notmore than $12,000,000 for public accountabil-ity activities in the analysis, education andrisk management program. The Departmentis expected to review requests for this fund-ing to reduce duplication of efforts by var-ious groups and excessive costs. None ofthese funds may be used for reimbursementof travel expenses of individuals traveling toWashington, DC.

The conference agreement includes fundingto maintain State health studies in SouthCarolina, Tennessee, and Colorado at the$7,300,000 level in fiscal year 1996. Thesefunds are in addition to the $9,950,000 for dosereconstruction or other health studies in-cluding those conducted under a Memoran-dum of Understanding between the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services andDOE’s Office of Environment, Safety andHealth. Additionally, the conferees directthat all of these studies shall continue to beadministered by the Office of Environment,Safety and Health.

The conference agreement supports theHanford environmental dose reconstructionproject and health information network atthe budget request level, and continues theHanford thyroid study at $1,700,000, the sameas the fiscal year 1995 level.

The conferees are aware that the Draft En-vironmental Impact Statement prepared bythe Department of Energy on the ProposedNuclear Weapons Nonproliferation PolicyConcerning Foreign Research Spent NuclearFuel includes as an option the importationof foreign spent nuclear fuel through civilianports. The conferees are concerned that someof these ports may not have the security orthe emergency management capabilitiesneeded to safely handle weapons grade orhighly irradiated nuclear material and thatthe designation of some of these ports as aport of entry would necessitate that thespent nuclear fuel be transported through

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10957October 26, 1995highly populated metropolitan areas. TheDepartment of Energy should take into con-sideration a port’s willingness to be des-ignated as a port of entry for the foreignspent nuclear fuel as one of the determiningfactors in the final selection process and tothe maximum extent feasible, the confereesdirect the Department of Energy to utilizemilitary ports or civilian ports which haveexpressed an interest in receiving the spentfuel.

The conference agreement includes the useof $667,240,000 of prior year balances, an in-crease of $390,298,000 over the budget request,which included the use of $276,942,000.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Amendment No. 31: Appropriates$1,373,212,000 for Other Defense Activities in-stead of $1,323,841,000 as proposed by theHouse and $1,439,112,000 as proposed by theSenate.

The conferees have provided $30,000,000 forthe Soviet-designed reactor safety program,as proposed by the Senate, and $10,000,000 forthe Industrial Partnering Program. The con-ference agreement also provides $3,600,000 tocontinue the Department’s role in the NorthKorean spent fuel project.

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The conferees are deeply concerned aboutthe recent direction in Executive Order 12958to ‘‘automatically declassify’’ and publiclyrelease documents containing National Secu-rity Information within five years whetheror not the records have been reviewed. Auto-matic declassification creates a substantialand unnecessary risk that information, in-cluding information regarding U.S. nuclearweapons, will be inadvertently disclosed topotential proliferators. Clearly such disclo-sure fundamentally undermines U.S. non-proliferation efforts, and could effect gravedamage to U.S. national security. The con-ferees believe that the automatic declas-sification of national security records thatcould contain Restricted Data constitutes aviolation of the legal protections for Re-stricted Data mandated by the Atomic En-ergy Act of 1954, as amended. Although theconferees recognize that the Order providesan exemption from automatic declassifica-tion for Restricted Data, the conferees donot see how such an exemption can be effec-tively implemented since the National Secu-rity Information records slated for auto-matic release have a high probability of con-taining some Restricted Data intermixedwithin the National Security Information.Thus, short of a Department of Energy re-view of all National Security Informationrecords believed by the Department to havea probability of containing Restricted Data,there is no way to ensure the protection ofRestricted Data materials consistent withthe provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.

Given the potential impact to national se-curity through the inappropriate release ofRestricted Data, the conferees believe therush to automatically declassify sensitivedocuments is not in the national interest.Therefore, the conferees strongly urge thePresident to review and revise ExecutiveOrder 12958 regarding Classified National Se-curity Information, and exempt from auto-matic declassification all National SecurityInformation files, including files of otheragencies, earmarked by the Department ofEnergy as potentially containing RestrictedData.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The conferees direct the use of $70,000,000of prior year balances from this account, anincrease of $57,000,000 from the budget re-quest of $13,000,000. The increase is to betaken against unobligated and uncosted bal-ances remaining in the Materials Supportprogram at the end of fiscal year 1995.

Amendment No. 32: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate providing $4,952,000 forproject 96–D–463, electrical and utility sys-tems upgrade at the Idaho Chemical Process-ing Plant in Idaho. Funding for this projecthas been included in the Defense Environ-mental Restoration and Waste Managementappropriation account.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Amendment No. 33: Appropriates$248,400,000 as proposed by the Senate insteadof $198,400,000 as proposed by the House.

Since passage of the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct of 1982, as amended, the nuclear wastefund has incurred costs for activities relatedto disposal of high-level waste generatedfrom the atomic energy defense activities ofthe Department of Energy. At the end of fis-cal year 1994, the balance owed by the Fed-eral Government to the nuclear waste fundwas $664,000,000 (including principal and in-terest). Through fiscal year 1995, a total of$361,930,000 has been paid to the nuclearwaste fund through the Defense NuclearWaste Disposal appropriation account.

During fiscal year 1995, the defense con-tribution to the nuclear waste fund wasreestimated to the current amount of$660,000,000. The recommendation of the con-ferees is to provide $248,400,000 in fiscal year1996 which will reduce the deficit to$538,000,000 at the end of the fiscal year.

Amendment No. 34: Inserts language pro-viding that $85,000,000 shall be available onlyfor an interim storage facility and only uponthe enactment of statutory authority in-stead of language proposed by the Senateclarifying the use of the funds appropriatedin the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appro-priation account.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Amendment No. 35: Appropriates$366,697,000 for Departmental Administrationinstead of $362,250,000 as proposed by theHouse and $377,126,000 as proposed by theSenate.

Amendment No. 36: Applies revenues of$122,306,000 for use in the Departmental Ad-ministration account as proposed by theHouse instead of $137,306,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

Amendment No. 37: Provides a net appro-priation of $244,391,000 for a final year esti-mate of Departmental Administration ex-penditures instead of $239,944,000 as proposedby the House and $239,820,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

While the conferees realize that this fund-ing level for the Departmental Administra-tion account will cause reductions in exist-ing personnel at the Department of Energy,it should be noted that the Secretary of En-ergy has initiated a strategic alignmentprocess which will also lead to downsizing ofthe Department by 27 percent over the nextfive years. The conference agreement as-sumes a 15-percent reduction in the numberof employees during fiscal year 1996 from thefiscal year 1995 baseline. To the extent pos-sible the additional reductions should be tar-geted to correspond with reductions in otherprogrammatic areas in this bill. Solar andrenewables, fusion, nuclear energy, tech-nology transfer, and science and educationprograms are a few of the areas funded belowfiscal year 1995. Support and administrativeworkload and staff focused on these areasshould see a corresponding reduction asshould offices for activities such as qualitymanagement and employee and contractorprotection which have grown significantly inthe last two years.

Reduced funding for this account was firstproposed by the House of Representatives inJune of this year, but the Department madeno effort to prepare for the possibility thatactual funding reductions would be imple-

mented on October 1, 1995. Thus, the impactof these reductions exceeds that which mayhave occurred had the Department takenthem seriously several months ago. Anotherexample of this was the rescission of$20,000,000 of fiscal year 1995 funding whichthe Department chose to allocate solely tocontractual services rather than personnelor programmatic areas. This was ultimatelyshort-sighted and has amplified the impactof the fiscal year 1996 reduction.

SECRETARIAL TRAVEL

In response to concerns about the breadthand scope of Secretarial travel, the confereesissue directions and impose limitations onappropriated funds as follows:

1. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, the Depart-ment is instructed to provide sufficient de-tail in its budget justifications for the Officeof the Secretary to provide for identificationof resources budgeted for secretarial travel.

2. Costs to support travel of the Secretary,any special assistants funded through the Of-fice of the Secretary, and any security detailaccompanying the Secretary are to be ab-sorbed within the line item for the Office ofthe Secretary.

3. The Department is instructed to notifythe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations of any internal reprogrammingswhich are executed to directly or indirectlysupport departmental travel, regardless ofthe amount.

4. No funds provided by this Act may beused to host or subsidize the travel of anynon-Federal participants in secretarial mis-sions.

5. The Department is instructed to providesemi-annual reports on secretarial travel tothe House and Senate Committees on Appro-priations. In addition to providing a full fi-nancial accounting of trips, these reportsshould identify: travel dates and destina-tions, all persons accompanying or advanc-ing the Secretary, and the purpose and re-sults of each trip.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Amendment No. 38: Appropriates $25,000,000for the Office of the Department of EnergyInspector General as proposed by the Senateinstead of $26,000,000 as proposed by theHouse. From within available funds, the Of-fice of Contractor Employee Protection is tobe funded in this account.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Recent actions by the Bonneville PowerAdministration have led to concerns that theBonneville Power Administration may notmake its Treasury payment in fiscal year1996. The conferees cannot state morestrongly that failure by Bonneville to makethe full annual payment to Treasury will se-riously jeopardize its credibility with Con-gress and will lead to more involvement byCongress in the management and decision-making processes of the agency.

The conferees are also concerned that Bon-neville’s much touted cost cutting measuresare more words than action. For example,Bonneville has indicated its intent todownsize, but plans to reduce its Federalwork force by little more than eight percentover three years. That is less that annual at-trition rates, and less that the Departmentof Energy has proposed for other program or-ganizations.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Amendment No. 39: Appropriates$131,290,000 as proposed by the Senate insteadof $132,290,000 as proposed by the House.

The conference agreement provides$131,290,000 for the Federal Energy Regu-latory Commission. Revenues are establishedat a rate equal to the amount provided for

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10958 October 26, 1995program activities, resulting in a net appro-priation of zero.

The conferees recognize that Commissionworkload with respect to the regulation ofnatural gas and oil is declining as those in-dustries become more competitive and,therefore, concurs with the House and Sen-ate Committees’ recommendations to reducestaff in the natural gas and oil pipelines pro-gram. A 20-percent reduction over the nexttwo years is recommended.

The conferees recognize the value in main-taining the current staffing level for the

electric power program. This is necessary torespond to a significant increase in workloaddue to the Commission’s efforts to establisha competitive wholesale bulk power marketfor electricity similar to what has been ac-complished in the natural gas area.

To mitigate the impact of the rec-ommended funding reduction, the confereesencourage the Commission to employ addi-tional authority from prior years’ unex-pended balances, as needed.

The conferees direct the Commission tonot approve the transfer of electric generat-

ing facilities at Scott Dam at Lake Pillsburyin Lake County, California, or Cape HornDam in Mendocino County, California, unlessthe Commission determines that such trans-fer will not adversely affect any existingwater rights and will not substantiallychange flow levels in the Russian and EelRivers.

Amendment No. 40: Applies revenues of$131,290,000 as proposed by the Senate insteadof $132,290,000 as proposed by the House.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10973October 26, 1995TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Amendment No. 41: Appropriates$170,000,000 instead of $142,000,000 as proposedby the House and $182,000,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

Of the total amount appropriated,$57,355,000 is provided for area development,$3,645,000 is provided for salaries and ex-penses, and $109,000,000 is provided for thehighway program.

The conferees direct that the Commissionestablish new area development allocationcriteria which place greater emphasis on as-sistance to the more severely distressedcounties.

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Amendment No. 42: Appropriates $343,000for Salaries and Expenses instead of $440,000as proposed by the Senate and appropriates$428,000 as a contribution to the DelawareRiver Basin Commission instead of $478,000as proposed by the Senate and deletes lan-guage related to the compensation of theUnited States Commissioner as proposed bythe Senate. The House included no similarprovision.

The conferees agree to provide final yearfunding for the Delaware River Basin Com-mission. Funding is provided to facilitate anorderly transition to financial self-suffi-ciency of the compact states and an orderlytermination of the Office of the FederalCommissioner. Committees of authorizingjurisdiction will have an opportunity duringfiscal year 1996 to address any new institu-tional arrangements or revisions to the Dela-ware River Basin Compact that are nec-essary or desirable due to the prospectivetermination of federal funding.

INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMACRIVER BASIN

Amendment No. 43: Appropriates $511,000 asproposed by the Senate. The House includedno similar provision.

The conferees agree to provide final yearfunding for the Interstate Commission onthe Potomac River Basin. Funding is pro-vided to facilitate an orderly transition to fi-nancial self-sufficiency of the compactstates. Committees of authorizing jurisdic-tion will have an opportunity during fiscalyear 1996 to address any new institutional ar-rangements or revisions to the compact cre-ating the Interstate Commission on the Po-tomac River Basin that are necessary or de-sirable due to the prospective termination ofFederal funding.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Amendment No. 44: Appropriates$468,300,000 as proposed by the House insteadof $474,3000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 45: Derives $11,000,000 fromthe Nuclear Waste Fund as proposed by theHouse instead of $17,000,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

Amendment No. 46: Provides for a net ap-propriation of $11,000,000 as proposed by theHouse instead of $17,000,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Amendment No. 47: Appropriates $2,531,000as proposed by the House instead of $2,664,000as proposed by the Senate.

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Amendment No. 48: Appropriates $318,000for Salaries and Expenses instead of $280,000as proposed by the Senate and appropriates$250,000 as a contribution to the Susque-hanna River Basin Commission instead of$288,000 as proposed by the Senate and de-letes language relating to the compensationof the United States Commissioner as pro-

posed by the Senate. The House included nosimilar provision.

The conferees agree to provide final yearfunding for the Susquehanna River BasinCommission. Funding is provided to facili-tate an orderly transition to financial self-sufficiency of the compact states and an or-derly termination of the Office of the Fed-eral Commissioner. Committees of authoriz-ing jurisdiction will have an opportunityduring fiscal year 1996 to address any new in-stitutional arrangements or revisions to theSusquehanna River Basin Compact that arenecessary or desirable due to the prospectivetermination of Federal funding.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Amendment No. 49: Appropriates$109,169,000 for the Tennessee Valley Author-ity instead of $103,339,000 as proposed by theHouse and $110,339,000 as proposed by theSenate.

The appropriation is to be distributedamong TVA programs as follows: $71,169,000for stewardship and land and water; $5,000,000for Land Between the Lakes; $16,000,000 foreconomic development; and $17,000,000 for theenvironmental research center.

In conjunction with its efforts to reducethe need for future appropriations at LandBetween the Lakes through reductions, sav-ings and efficiencies, TVA may continue touse its flexibility to allocate up to an addi-tional $1,000,000 from its Stewardship fundsto LBL. This flexibility will allow TVA, ifthe need arises due to a lack of funds orother emergency and/or crisis situations, toallocate additional funding to promote thefacilitation of LBL’s transition to increasedfinancial self-sufficiency.

Amendment No. 50: Includes language pro-posed by the Senate that requires the Ten-nessee Valley Authority to submit to Con-gress a plan for obtaining funding for the En-vironmental Research Center from othersources amended to extend the deadline forsubmission of such plan and to delete limita-tions on expenditures for the TVA Environ-mental Research Center.

TITLE VGENERAL PROVISIONS

Amendment No. 51: Deletes language pro-posed by the House repealing Sec. 505 of Pub-lic Law 102–377 which prohibits the use offunds to conduct studies relating to changesin pricing hydroelectric power by the sixFederal public power authorities and Sec. 208of Public Law 99–349 which prohibits the useof funds by the executive branch to solicitproposals, prepare studies, or draft proposalsto transfer out of Federal ownership the Fed-eral power marketing administrations lo-cated within the contiguous 48 states, butaccepts House language repealing Sec. 510 ofPublic Law 101–514 which prohibits the use offunds by the executive branch to change theemployment levels determined by the admin-istrators of the Federal power marketing ad-ministrations to be necessary to carry outtheir responsibilities. The conferees agreethat the statutory limitations do not pro-hibit the Legislative Branch from initiatingor conducting studies or collecting informa-tion regarding the sale or transfer of thepower marketing administrations to non-Federal ownership.

The conference agreement also inserts lan-guage which extends the due date for the re-port required to be submitted by Title 30 ofPublic Law 102–575, the Western Water Pol-icy Review Act of 1992. This extension is re-quired because of the delay by the Adminis-tration in establishing the Western WaterPolicy Review Advisory Commission. TheBureau of Reclamation may use up to$800,000 of available funds in support of thework of the Commission.

Amendment No. 52: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-

ate providing that no funds may be used forprograms, projects, or activities not in com-pliance with applicable Federal law relatingto risk assessment, protection of propertyrights, or unfunded mandates and insertslanguage which extends the authorizationfor the Trinity River Restoration Program ofthe Central Valley Project, California, forone year. The conferees are aware that theHouse Resources Committee currently hasunder consideration legislation to extend theauthorization for this program. This tem-porary extension will permit work to con-tinue on this important program pending ac-tion by the authorizing committee.

Amendment No. 53: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate reducing the Nuclear Waste DisposalFund by $1,000, and inserts language that di-rects the Secretary of the Interior to proceedwithout delay with construction of those fa-cilities of the Animas-La Plata Project, Col-orado and New Mexico, identified for con-struction in the Final Biological Opinion forthe project dated October 25, 1991.

Amendment No. 54: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate which provides that none of the fundsavailable in the Act for the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers Upper Mississippi River—Illinios Waterway Navigation Study may beused to study any portion of the MississippiRiver above Lock and Dam 14.

The conferees believe that the languagecontained in the Hospital-passed bill couldrestrict the ability of the Corps of Engineersto undertake a comprehensive study of thenavigation needs on the Upper MississippiRiver and Illinois Waterway and have, there-fore, agreed to delete the language. The con-ferees do agree, however, with the intent ofthe language and direct that the Corps of En-gineers not study any large-scale improve-ments on the Upper Mississippi River aboveLock and Dam 14.

Amendment No. 55: Deletes language in-serted by the Senate pertaining to theamount of fish and wildlife costs that theBonneville Power Administration couldincur, and inserts language amending PublicLaw 88–552 and the Pacific Northwest Elec-tric Power Planning and Conservation Act topermit the Bonneville Power Administrationto sell excess Federal power outside the Pa-cific Northwest; requiring the NorthwestPower and Conservation Planning Council toprovide a report to Congress; authorizing theCorps of Engineers to procure goods throughBonneville using the authorities available tothe Administrator; maintaining the residen-tial exchange power program through fiscalyear 1997; providing Bonneville Power Ad-ministration employees with a voluntaryseparation incentive up to $25,000; and au-thorizing these authorities to extend beyondthe fiscal year.

The conferees are deeply concerned overthe escalating and uncoordinated fish andwildlife costs imposed on the BonnevillePower Administration (BPA) and its cus-tomers due to Endangered Species Act com-pliance. The conferees are concerned thatthe current inability to control BPA’s fishand wildlife costs may result in the shiftingof costs—both directly and indirectly—to theNation’s taxpayers and to non-Federal inter-ests on the Columbia and Snake River sys-tem. Such non-Federal interests include theregion’s electric ratepayers, agriculture,non-Federal hydroelectric projects owners,river users, reservoir users, water interests,and others. The conferees strongly urge BPAand the Administration to resist the tempta-tion to shift fish and wildlife costs onto theNation’s taxpayers and these non-Federal in-terests.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10974 October 26, 1995The conferees understand that there is a

nearly unanimous call from affected par-ties—user groups, and ratepayers—in the re-gion of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Mon-tana to start the review of the Pacific North-west Power Planning and Conservation Act.The provisions of the Northwest Power Actthat deserve careful consideration include,but are not limited to, containing the re-gion’s fish and wildlife costs, coordinatingfish and wildlife expenditures, and grantingthe region the ability to make the decisionswith respect to such costs. The conferees,therefore, urge a renewed review of theNorthwest Power Act within the authorizingcommittees in the next session of Congressin an effort to answer these and other impor-tant issues confronting the region.

The conferees understand the Administra-tion is taking steps to control fish and wild-life costs as an interim measure. In addition,the conferees direct the agencies involved toenter into a Memorandum of Agreement es-tablishing an overall salmon recovery budg-et, and detailing the manner in which suchbudget will be implemented.

Sale of Excess Federal Power.—Excess powermay be generated by routine power oper-ations, or fish and wildlife operations, of ei-ther the Federal Columbia River Power Sys-tem or other electric power plants fromwhich Bonneville is contractually obligatedto acquire electric power.

This section removes restrictions frompower made excess to BPA contractual obli-gations by: 1) a customer’s decision to re-move load from Bonneville, 2) hydrosystemoperations, or 3) purchases for the benefit offish and wildlife. This gives BPA greaterflexibility in marketing, to increase its reve-nue and its competitiveness.

The legislation applies the term ‘‘excesspower’’ to this power. Currently, Bonne-ville’s authorizing legislation severely limitsBonneville’s flexibility to market suchpower, putting the agency at a marketingdisadvantage and restricting potential reve-nues. Bonneville may sell excess power with-out, among other things, the regional pref-erence call back provisions of 60 days for en-ergy sales and 60 months for capacity sales,and without the Bonneville Project Act pro-hibition on resale of Federal power by pri-vate entities not in the business of sellingpower in the retail market. Surplus powerwhich is surplus for reasons other than thereasons stated above will continue to be gov-erned by existing marketing restrictions.

Bonneville is allowed greater flexibility toprovide Pacific Northwest preference noticeto regional customers for out-of-region sales.This flexibility may include shorter noticeperiods and less detailed information on in-program negotiations. Notice periods may bevery short for short-term sales (for example,notice to accommodate hourly sales) and fortransactions that must be negotiated quick-ly. BPA may also provide seasonal noticeswith price ranges requesting interested par-ties to contact BPA to purchase power. In allcases, prior to sales outside the PacificNorthwest, Bonneville would continue tooffer power first to Northwest utilities andindustries purchasing power from Bonne-ville. Bonneville would offer excess powerfirst to regional customers under the sameessential rate, terms and conditions as forthe proposed out-of-region sale. The Admin-istrator has discretion in making this deter-mination given that the rate may depend onterms and conditions for one purchaser thatwould be inapplicable to another purchaser.The rate, as under current law, will continueto be the price that BPA applies to the pro-posed sale within the parameters of the ap-plicable rate schedule and based on theterms and conditions of the sale.

This legislation poses no significant risk orcost to Bonneville’s regional customers be-

cause the only power sold outside the regionwithout the restrictions is power abandonedby regional customers and excess power gen-erated or purchased for the benefit of fishand wildlife. No other amount of power canbe sold outside the region without such re-strictions. Regional customers will continueto receive first right to purchase excesspower before it is sold outside the region.

Within 90 days, the Bonneville Power Ad-ministration, with the concurrence of theSecretary of Energy, shall deliver a reporton the sale of excess Federal Power provisionto the House Commerce Committee, HouseResources Committee, the Senate Energyand Natural Resources Committee, and theHouse and Senate Committies on Appropria-tions. This report will be one of the factorsconsidered in the comprehensive review ofthe Bonneville Power Administration.

Residential Exchange.—Establishes thetotal amount of benefits available for resi-dential and small farm consumers of utilitiesparticipating in the residential exchangeprogram under section 5(c) of the PacificNorthwest Power Planning and ConservationAct for fiscal year 1997. All residential ex-change benefits will continue to be passedthrough in their entirety to the eligible resi-dential and small farm consumers of the re-spective utilities. The conferees recognizethe authority of the Bonneville Power Ad-ministration to implement in lieu trans-actions, among other actions, which couldeffectively terminate the residential ex-change after 2001. Consistent with the re-gional review, Bonneville and its customersshould work together to gradually phase outthe residential exchange program by October1, 2001. This should result in total fiscal year1997 benefits to these consumers being ap-proximately equivalent to the benefits theyreceived in fiscal year 1996.

In order to maintain a sound financial po-sition, the conferees urge, to the extent prac-ticable, BPA to take such actions as are nec-essary to assure the proposed rate for publicutilities and direct services industries arenot increased from the initial proposal. In afurther effort to prevent load loss, the con-ferees urge Bonneville to pursue load com-mitments from its public utility customersat an appropriate level which assures Bonne-ville’s continued financial viability and rec-ognizes customers’ desires for load diver-sification and to capture economies of scaleby pooling their resources.

Amendment No. 56: Inserts a provisionwhich would repeal section 7 of the MagneticFusion Engineering Act as proposed by theSenate, but does not repeal section 3131(c) ofPublic Law 101–510, the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, as pro-posed by the Senate because this was an er-roneous citation.

Amendment No. 57: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate expressing the sense ofthe Senate on the conference on S. 4, theLine Item Veto Act.

Amendment No. 58: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate requiring reductions inenergy costs of agency facilities.

Amendment No. 59: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate regarding the regulationof water levels in Rainy Lake and NamakanLake in Minnesota, and changes the sectionnumber.

CONFERENCE TOTAL—WITH COMPARISONS

The total new budget (obligational) au-thority for the fiscal year 1996 recommendedby the Committee of Conference, with com-parison to the fiscal year 1995 amount, the1996 budget estimates, and the House andSenate bills for 1966 follow:New budget (obligational)

authority, fiscal year1995 ................................. $20,042,999,000

Budget estimates of new(obligational) authority,fiscal year 1996 ................ 20,562,044,000

House bill, fiscal year 1996 . 18,682,457,000Senate bill, fiscal year 1996 20,169,152,000Conference agreement, fis-

cal year 1996 .................... 19,336,311,000Conference agreement

compared with:New budget

(obligational) author-ity, fiscal year 1995 ...... ¥706,688,000

Budget estimates of new(obligational) author-ity, fiscal year 1996 ...... ¥1,225,733,000

House bill, fiscal year1996 .............................. +653,854,000

Senate bill, fiscal year1996 .............................. ¥832,841,000

JOHN T. MYERS,HAROLD ROGERS,JOE KNOLLENBERG,FRANK RIGGS,RODNEY P.

FRELINGHUYSEN,JIM BUNN,BOB LIVINGSTON,TOM BEVILL,VIC FAZIO,JIM CHAPMAN,

Managers on the Part of the House.

PETE V. DOMENICI,MARK O. HATFIELD,THAD COCHRAN,SLADE GORTON,MITCH MCCONNELL,ROBERT F. BENNETT,CONRAD BURNS,ROBERT C. BYRD,FRITZ HOLLINGS,HARRY REID,BOB KERREY,PATTY MURRAY,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

f

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1868

Mr. CALLAHAN submitted the fol-lowing conference report and state-ment on the bill (H.R. 1868) making ap-propriations for foreign operations, ex-port financing, and related programsfor the fiscal year ending September 30,1996, and for other purposes:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 104–295)

The committee of conference on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses on theamendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.1868) ‘‘making appropriations for foreign op-erations, export financing, and related pro-grams for the fiscal year ending September30, 1996, and for other purposes,’’ having met,after full and free conference, have agreed torecommend and do recommend to their re-spective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amend-ments numbered 1, 3, 6, 15, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33,36, 37, 39, 54, 59, 61, 71, 85, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96,97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113,117, 119, 120, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 136, 137,141, 143, 148, 153, 154, 157, 164, 166, 170, 172, 173,174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185, 187, 188, 191, and193.

That the House recede from its disagree-ment to the amendments of the Senate num-bered 4, 7, 13, 14, 17, 20, 26, 27, 38, 40, 41, 49, 50,52, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 81,83, 84, 86, 87, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 114, 116, 118,121, 122, 123, 124, 131, 133, 138, 139, 146, 149, 150,151, 160, 161, 162, and 163, and agree to thesame.

Amendment numbered 2:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10975October 26, 1995That the House recede from its disagree-


In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment, insert: $45,614,000; and the Senateagree to the same.






Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended to read as follows:

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOP-MENT CHILD SURVIVAL AND DISEASEPROGRAMS

Of the funds appropriated in title II of thisAct, and under the heading ‘‘International Or-ganizations and Programs’’ in title IV of thisAct, not less than $484,000,000 shall be madeavailable for programs for child survival, assist-ance to combat tropical and other diseases, andrelated activities: Provided, That this amountshall be made available for such activities as (1)immunization programs, (2) oral rehydrationprograms, (3) health and nutrition programs,and related education programs, which addressthe needs of mothers and children, (4) water andsanitation programs, (5) assistance for displacedand orphaned children, (6) programs for theprevention, treatment, and control of, and re-search on, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, polio, ma-laria and other diseases, and (7) a contributionon a grant basis to the United Nations Chil-dren’s Fund (UNICEF).



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert:

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE




(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses to carry out the provi-sions of sections 103 through 106 and chapter 10of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,title V of the International Security and Devel-opment Cooperation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–533) and the provisions of section 401 of the For-eign Assistance Act of 1969, $1,675,000,000; andthe Senate agree to the same.



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert: That of the amount appro-priated under this heading, up to $20,000,000may be made available for the Inter-AmericanFoundation and shall be apportioned directly tothat agency: Provided further, That of theamount appropriated under this heading, up to$11,500,000 may be made available for the Afri-can Development Foundation and shall be ap-portioned directly to that agency: Provided fur-ther, That of the funds appropriated under title

II of this Act that are administered by the Agen-cy for International Development and madeavailable for family planning assistance, notless than 65 percent shall be made available di-rectly to the agency’s central Office of Popu-lation and shall be programmed by that officefor family planning activities: Provided further,That the President shall seek to ensure thatfunds made available under this heading forsub-Saharan Africa are in substantially thesame proportion to the total amount appro-priated and made available by this Act for de-velopment assistance as the proportion of fundsmade available for development assistance forsub-Saharan Africa was to the total amount ap-propriated for development assistance in PublicLaw 103–306: Provided further, That up to$25,000,000 of the funds appropriated under thisheading may be made available for necessaryexpenses to carry out the provisions of section667 of the Foreign Assistance Act: Provided fur-ther, That the President shall seek to ensurethat the percentage of funds made availableunder this heading for the activities of privateand voluntary organizations and cooperatives isat least equal to the percentage of funds madeavailable pursuant to corresponding authoritiesin law for the activities of private and voluntaryorganizations and cooperatives in fiscal year1995: Provided further,



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert: : Provided further, Thatfor purposes of this or any other Act authoriz-ing or appropriating funds for foreign oper-ations, export financing, and related programs,the term ‘‘motivate’’, as it relates to family plan-ning assistance, shall not be construed to pro-hibit the provision, consistent with local law, ofinformation or counseling about all pregnancyoptions; and the Senate agree to the same.



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert: : Provided further, Thatnot less than $650,000 of the funds made avail-able under this heading should be made avail-able for support of the United States Tele-communications Training Institute; and theSenate agree to the same.


ment to the amendment of the Senate num-bered 18, and agreed to the same with anamendment, as follows:


CYPRUS

Of the funds appropriated under the headings‘‘Development Assistance’’ and ‘‘Economic Sup-port Fund’’, not less than $15,000,000 shall bemade available for Cyprus to be used for schol-arships, administrative support of the scholar-ship program, bicommunal projects, and meas-ures aimed at reunification of the island and de-signed to reduce tensions and promote peaceand cooperation between the two communitieson Cyprus.


ment to the amendment to the Senate num-bered 19, and agree to the same with anamendment, as follows:


BURMA

Of the funds appropriated by this Act to carryout the provisions of chapter 8 of part I and

chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign AssistanceAct of 1961, not less than $2,380,000 shall bemade available to support activities in Burma,along the Burma-Thailand border, and for ac-tivities of Burmese student groups and other or-ganizations located outside Burma, for the pur-poses of fostering democracy in Burma, support-ing the provision of medical supplies and otherhumanitarian assistance to Burmese located inBurma or displaced Burmese along the borders,and for other purposes: Provided, That of thisamount, not less than $200,000 shall be madeavailable to support newspapers, publications,and other media activities promoting democracyinside Burma: Provided further, That of thisamount, not less than $380,000 shall be madeavailable for crop substitution activities in co-operation with the Kachin people of Burma:Provided further, That funds made availableunder this heading may be made available not-withstanding any other provision of law: Pro-vided further, That provision of such fundsshall be made available subject to the regularnotification procedures of the Committees onAppropriations.




INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

For necessary expenses for international dis-aster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstructionassistance pursuant to section 491 of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961, as amended, $181,000,000to remain available until expended.

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE FORMERYUGOSLAVIA

Of the funds appropriated in title II of thisAct, $40,000,000 should be available only foremergency humanitarian assistance to theformer Yugoslavia, of which amount not lessthan $6,000,000 shall be available only for hu-manitarian assistance to Kosova.



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert: owed to the Unit-ed States as a result of concessional loans madeto eligible Latin American and Caribbean coun-tries, pursuant to part IV of the Foreign Assist-ance Act of 1961, $10,000,000; and the Senateagree to the same.




For the cost, as defined in section 502 of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974, of guaranteedloans authorized by sections 221 and 222 of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961, $4,000,000, to re-main available until September 30, 1997: Pro-vided, That these funds are available to sub-sidize loan principal, 100 percent of which shallbe guaranteed, pursuant to the authority ofsuch sections. In addition, for administrative ex-penses to carry out guaranteed loan programs,$7,000,000, all of which may be transferred toand merged with the appropriation for Operat-ing Expenses of the Agency for InternationalDevelopment: Provided further, That commit-ments to guarantee loans under this headingmay be entered into notwithstanding the secondand third sentences of section 222(a) and, withregard to programs for Eastern Europe and pro-grams for the benefit of South Africans dis-advantaged by apartheid, section 223(j) of the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10976 October 26, 1995Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided fur-ther, That none of the funds appropriatedunder this heading shall be obligated exceptthrough the regular notification proceduresof the Committees on Appropriations.



Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended to read as follows :Provided, That of this amount not more than$1,475,000 may be made available to pay forprinting costs: Provided further, That none ofthe funds appropriated by this Act for programsadministered by the Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID) may be used to financeprinting costs of any report or study (except fea-sibility, design, or evaluation reports or studies)in excess of $25,000 without the approval of theAdministrator of the Agency or the Administra-tor’s designee: Provided further, That notwith-standing any other provision of law, none of thefunds appropriated or otherwise made availableby this Act may be made available for expensesnecessary to relocate the Agency for Inter-national Development, or any part of that agen-cy, to the building at the Federal Triangle inWashington, District of Columbia; and the Sen-ate agree to the same.



In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment, insert: $30,200,000, to remain availableuntil September 30, 1997; and the Senate agreeto the same.



In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment, insert: $2,340,000,000; and the Senateagree to the same.



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert: : Provided, Thatof the funds appropriated under this heading,not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be availableonly for Israel, which sum shall be available ona grant basis as a cash transfer and shall be dis-bursed within thirty days of enactment of thisAct or by October 31, 1995, whichever is later:Provided further, That not less than $815,000,000shall be available only for Egypt, which sumshall be provided on a grant basis, and of whichsum cash transfer assistance may be provided,with the understanding that Eygpt will under-take significant economic reforms which are ad-ditional to those which were undertaken in pre-vious fiscal years, and of which not less than$200,000,000 shall be provided as Commodity Im-port Program assistance: Provided further, Thatthe Egyptian pound equivalent of $85,000,000generated from funds made available by thisparagraph or generated from funds appro-priated under this heading in prior appropria-tions Acts, may be made available to the UnitedStates pursuant to the United States-Egypt Eco-nomic, Technical and Related Assistance Agree-ments of 1978, for the following activities undersuch Agreements: the Egyptian pound equiva-lent of $50,000,000 may be made available to re-plenish the existing endowment for the Amer-ican University in Cairo, and the Egyptianpound equivalent of $35,000,000 may be madeavailable for projects and programs, includingestablishment of an endowment, which promotethe preservation and restoration of Egyptianantiquities: Provided further, That in exercisingthe authority to provide cash transfer assistance

for Israel and Egypt, the President shall ensurethat the level of such assistance does not causean adverse impact on the total level of non-mili-tary exports from the United States to each suchcountry: Provided further, That it is the senseof the Congress that the recommended levels ofassistance for Egypt and Israel are based ingreat measure upon their continued participa-tion in the Camp David Accords and upon theEgyptian-Israeli peace treaty; and the Senateagree to the same.






Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended to read as follows: ,such as those violations included in the HelsinkiFinal Act: Provided, That such funds may bemade available without regard to the restrictionin this subsection if the President determinesthat to do so is in the national security interestof the United States: Provided further,



In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert: : Provided, That this re-striction does not apply to demilitarization ornonproliferation programs; and the Senateagree to the same.



Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, and to read as follows: : Pro-vided, That grantees and contractors should, tothe maximum extent possible, place in key staffpositions specialists with prior on the groundexpertise in the region of activity and fluency inone of the local languages; and the Senateagree to the same.




(j) In issuing new task orders entering intocontracts, or making grants, with funds appro-priated under this heading or in prior appro-priations Acts, for projects or activities thathave as one of their primary purposes the foster-ing of private sector development, the Coordina-tor for United States Assistance to the NewIndependent States and the implementing agen-cy shall encourage the participation of and givesignificant weight to contractors and granteeswho propose investing a significant amount oftheir own resources (including volunteer serv-ices and in-kind contributions) in such projectsand activities.




(k) Of the funds made available under thisheading, not less than $225,000,000 shall be madeavailable for Ukraine, with the understandingthat Ukraine will undertake significant eco-

nomic reforms which are additional to thosewhich were undertaken in previous fiscal years,and of which not less than $50,000,000 (from thisor any other Act) shall be made available to im-prove energy self-sufficient and improve safetyat nuclear reactors, and of which $2,000,000should be made available to conduct or imple-ment an assessment of the energy distributiongrid that provides recommendations leading toincreased access to power by industrial, commer-cial and residential users, and of which not lessthan $22,000,000 shall be made available to sup-port the development of small and medium en-terprises, including independent broadcast andprint media.

(l) Of the funds made available under thisheading, $5,000,000 should be made available fora project to screen, diagnose, and treat victimsof breast cancer associated with the 1985 inci-dent at the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine.

(m) Of the funds made available by this Act,not less than $85,000,000 shall be made availablefor Armenia.

(n) Of the funds made available by this or anyother Act, $30,000,000 should be made availablefor Georgia.

(o)(1) Effective ninety days after the date ofenactment of this Act, none of the funds appro-priated under this heading may be made avail-able for Russia unless the President determinesand certifies in writing to the Committees onAppropriations that the Government of Russiahas terminated implementation of arrangementsto provide Iran with technical expertise, train-ing, technology, or equipment necessary to de-velop a nuclear reactor or related nuclear re-search facilities or programs.

(2) Subparagraph (1) shall not apply if thePresident determines that making such fundsavailable is important to the national securityinterest of the United States. Any such deter-mination shall cease to be effective six monthsafter being made unless the President deter-mines that its continuation is important to thenational security interest of the United States.

(p) Of the funds appropriated under thisheading, $20,000,000 should be provided for hos-pital partnership programs, medical assistanceto directly reduce the incidence of infectious dis-eases such as diphtheria or tuberculosis, and aprogram to reduce the adverse impact of con-taminated drinking water.

(q) Of the funds appropriated under thisheading and under the heading ‘‘Assistance forEastern Europe and the Baltic States’’, not lessthan $12,600,000 shall be made available for lawenforcement training and exchanges, and inves-tigative and technical assistance activities relat-ed to international criminal activities.

(r) Support should be provided from funds ap-propriated under this heading for a ballot secu-rity project to promote public review by Russiancitizens over the conduct of parliamentary andpresidential elections in Russia: Provided, Thatthe Secretary of State may waive this provisionwith regard to any election upon notification tothe Committees on Appropriations that the Gov-ernment of Russia has blocked implementationof a ballot security project.

(s) Of the funds appropriated under thisheading, not less than $50,000,000 should be pro-vided to the Western NIS and Central Asian En-terprise Funds: Provided, That obligation ofthese funds shall be consistent with sound busi-ness practices.

(t) The President shall establish a Trans-Caucasus Enterprise Fund to encourage re-gional peace through economic cooperation:Provided, That the President shall seek other bi-lateral and multilateral investors in the Fund:Provided further, That of the funds made avail-able under this heading, not less than$15,000,000 shall be made available for a UnitedStates investment in the Trans-Caucasus Enter-prise Fund.

(u) Funds appropriated under this heading orin prior appropriations Acts that are or have

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10977October 26, 1995been made available for an Enterprise Fundmay be deposited by such Fund in interest-bear-ing accounts prior to the disbursement of suchfunds by the Fund for program purposes. TheFund may retain for such program proposes anyinterest earned on such deposits without return-ing such interest to the Treasury of the UnitedStates and without further appropriation by theCongress. Funds made available for EnterpriseFunds shall be expended at the minimum ratenecessary to make timely payment for projectsand activities.

(v) Section 5421(d) (3) (B) of title 22, UnitedStates Code is amended by adding at the endthereof the following: ‘‘: Provided, That, as toEnterprise Funds established with respect tomore than one host country, such EnterpriseFund may, in lieu of the appointment of citizensof the host countries to its Board of Directors,establish an advisory council for the host regioncomprised of citizens of each of the host coun-tries or establish separate advisory councils foreach of the host countries (hereinafter in thissection referred to as the ‘‘Advisory Councils’’),with which the Enterprise Fund’s policies andproposed activities and such host country citi-zens shall satisfy the experience and expertiserequirements of this clause.’’

(w) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, assistance may be provided for the Govern-ment of Azerbaijan for humanitarian purposes,if the President determines that humanitarianassistance provided in Azerbaijan through non-governmental organizations is not adequatelyaddressing the suffering of refugees and inter-nally displaced persons.




INDEPENDENT AGENCY









In lieu of the matter proposed by saidamendment, insert: ; salaries and expenses ofpersonnel and dependents as authorized by theForeign Service Act of 1980; allowances as au-thorized by sections 5921 through 5925 of title 5,United States Code; and the Senate agree tothe same.







: Provided further, That funds appropriatedunder this heading for grant financed militaryeducation and training for Indonesia may onlybe available for expanded military educationand training; and the Senate agree to thesame.



In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-ment, insert: $3,208,390,000; and the Senateagree to the same.



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert: : Provided, Thatof the funds appropriated by this paragraph notless than $1,800,000,000 shall be available forgrants only for Israel, and not less than$1,300,000,000 shall be available for grants onlyfor Egypt: Provided further, That the funds ap-propriated by this paragraph for Israel shall bedisbursed within thirty days of enactment ofthis Act or by October 31, 1995, whichever islater: Provided further, That to the extent thatthe Government of Israel requests that funds beused for such purposes, grants made availablefor Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed byIsrael and the United States, be available foradvanced weapons systems, of which not lessthan $475,000,000 shall be available for the pro-curement in Israel of defense articles and de-fense services, including research and develop-ment; and the Senate agree to the same.






In lieu of the sum named in said amend-ment, insert: $70,000,000; and the Senateagree to the same.









Retain the matter proposed by said amend-ment, amended as follows: in lieu of‘‘$67,550,000’’, insert: $60,900,000; and the Sen-ate agree to the same.



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert: $25,952,110, andfor the United States share of the increase in

the resources of the Fund for Special Oper-ations, $10,000,000, to remain available until ex-pended; and the Senate agree to the same.



Retain the matter proposed by said amend-ment, amended as follows: in lieu of‘‘$70,000,000’’, insert: $53,750,000; and the Sen-ate agree to the same.









Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended to read as follows: :Provided further, That funds may be madeavailable to the Korean Peninsula Energy De-partment Organization (KEDO) for administra-tive expenses and heavy fuel oil costs associatedwith the Agreed Framework: Provided further,That no funds may be provided for KEDO forfunding for administrative expenses and heavyfuel oil costs beyond the total amount includedfor KEDO in the fiscal year 1996 congressionalpresentation: Provided further, That no fundsmay be made available under this Act to KEDOunless the President determines and certifies inwriting to the Committees on Appropriationsthat (a) in accordance with section 1 of theAgreed Framework, KEDO has designated a Re-public of Korea company, corporation or entityfor the purpose of negotiating a prime contractto carry out construction of the light water re-actors provided for in the Agreed Framework;and (b) the Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea is maintaining the freeze on its nuclearfacilities as required in the Agreed Framework;and (c) the United States is taking steps to as-sure that progress is made on (1) the North-South dialogue, including efforts to reduce bar-riers to trade and investment, such as removingrestrictions on travel, telecommunications serv-ices and financial transactions; (2) implementa-tion of the January 1, 1992, Joint Declaration onthe Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula;Provided further, That a report on the specificefforts with regard to subsections (a), (b) and (c)of the preceding proviso shall be submitted bythe President to the Committees on Appropria-tions six months after the date of enactment ofthis Act, and every six months thereafter; andthe Senate agree to the same.




‘‘Development Assistance’’



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10978 October 26, 1995In the matter proposed to be inserted in

said amendment, strike ‘‘wholly paid for’’and insert: wholly paid for from; and the Sen-ate agree to the same.




(c) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The President maywaive the application in whole or in part, ofsubsection (a) if the President certifies to theCongress that the President has determined thatthe waiver is necessary to meet emergency hu-manitarian needs or to achieve a negotiated set-tlement of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovinathat is acceptable to the parties.

(d) EXPANDED AUTHORITY.—Section 660(b) ofthe Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘or’’;(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at

the end thereof and inserting ‘‘; or’’;(3) adding the following new paragraphs:‘‘(5) with respect to assistance, including

training, relating to sanctions monitoring andenforcement;

‘‘(6) with respect to assistance provided to re-constitute civilian police authority and capabil-ity in the post-conflict restoration of host nationinfrastructure for the purposes of supporting anation emerging from instability, and the provi-sion of professional public safety training, to in-clude training in internationally recognizedstandards of human rights, the rule of law,anti-corruption, and the promotion of civilianpolice roles that support democracy.’’.



In lieu of the matter stricken and insertedby said amendment, insert: tactically or stra-tegically, with the Khmer Rouge in their mili-tary operations, or to the military of any coun-try which the President determines is not takingsteps to prevent a pattern or practice of commer-cial relations between its members and theKhmer Rouge; and the Senate agree to thesame.



Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended to read as follows: , Es-tonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and the Senateagree to the same.



Restore the matter stricken by saidamendment, amended to read as follows: :Provided, That not to exceed $750,000 may bemade available to carry out the provisions ofsection 316 of Public law 96–533; and the Senateagree to the same.



Retain the matter proposed by said amend-ment, amended as follows: In lieu of ‘‘Octo-ber 23, 1993’’ insert: October 23, 1992; and theSenate agree to the same.




CLARIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 620E of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2375) is amend-ed—

(1) in subsection (e)—(A) by striking the words ‘‘No assistance’’ and

inserting the words ‘‘No military assistance’’;(B) by striking the words ‘‘in which assistance

is to be furnished or military equipment or tech-nology’’ and inserting the words ‘‘in which mili-tary assistance is to be furnished or militaryequipment or technology’’;

(C) by striking the words ‘‘the proposed Unit-ed States assistance’’ and inserting the words‘‘the proposed United States military assist-ance’’;

(D) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ immediately after ‘‘(e)’’;and

(E) by adding the following new paragraph:‘‘(2) The prohibitions in this section do not

apply to any assistance or transfer provided forthe purposes of:

‘‘(A) International narcotics control (includ-ing Chapter 8 of Part I of this Act) or any provi-sion of law available for providing assistance forcounter narcotics purposes;

‘‘(B) Facilitating military-to-military contact,training (including Chapter 5 of Part II of thisAct) and humanitarian and civic assistanceprojects;

‘‘(C) Peacekeeping and other multilateral op-erations (including Chapter 6 of Part II of thisAct relating to peacekeeping) or any provisionof law available for providing assistance forpeacekeeping purposes, except that lethal mili-tary equipment provided under this subpara-graph shall be provided on a lease or loan basisonly and shall be returned upon completion ofthe operation for which it was provided;

‘‘(D) Antiterrorism assistance (includingChapter 8 of Part II of this Act relating toantiterrorism assistance) or any provision of lawavailable for antitorrism assistance purposes.

‘‘(3) The restrictions of this subsection shallcontinue to apply to contracts for the delivery ofF–16 aircraft to Pakistan.

‘‘(4) Notwithstanding the restrictions con-tained in this subsection, military equipment,technology, or defense services, other than F–16aircraft, may be transferred to Pakistan pursu-ant to contracts or cases entered into before Oc-tober 1, 1990.’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following newsubsections:

‘‘(f) STORAGE COSTS.—The President may re-lease the Government of Pakistan of its contrac-tual obligation to pay the United States Govern-ment for the storage costs of items purchasedprior to October 1, 1990, but not delivered by theUnited States Government pursuant to sub-section (e) and may reimburse the Governmentof Pakistan for any such amount paid, on suchterms and conditions as the President may pre-scribe: Provided, That such payments have nobudgetary impact.

‘‘(g) INAPPLICABILITY OF RESTRICTIONS TOPREVIOUSLY OWNED ITEMS.—Section 620E(e)does not apply to broken, worn or unupgradeditems or their equivalent which Pakistan paidfor and took possession of prior to October 1,1990 and which the Government of Pakistansent to the Unite States for repair or upgrade.Such equipment or its equivalent may be re-turned to the Government of Pakistan: Pro-vided, That the President determines and so cer-tifies to the appropriate congressional commit-tees that such equipment or equivalent neitherconstitutes nor has received any significantqualitative upgrade since being transferred tothe United States and that its total value doesnot exceed $25,000,000.

‘‘(h) BALLISTIC MISSILE SANCTIONS NOT AF-FECTED.—Nothing contained herein shall affectsanctions for transfers of missile equipment ortechnology required under section 11B of theExport Administration Act of 1979 or section 73of the Arms Export Control Act.’’.

And the Senate agree to the same.Amendment numbered 147:

That the House recede from its disagree-ment to the amendment of the Senate num-bered 147, and agree to the same with anamendment, as follows:


SEC. 562. (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the fundsmade available in this Act may be used for as-sistance in support of any country when it ismade known to the President that the govern-ment of such country prohibits or otherwise re-stricts, directly or indirectly, the transport ordelivery of United States humanitarian assist-ance.

(b) EXCEPTION.—Funds may be made availablewith regard to the restrictions in subsection (a)if the President determines that to do so is inthe national security interest of the UnitedStates.




(b) EXCEPTIONS.—The requirement of sub-section (a) to withhold assistance shall notapply with respect to—

(1) assistance to meet urgent humanitarianneeds including disaster and refugee relief;

(2) democratic political reform and rule of lawactivities;

(3) the creation of private sector and non-governmental organizations that are independ-ent of government control;

(4) the development of a free market economicsystem; and

(5) assistance for the purposes described in theCooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (titleXII of Public Law 103–160).




LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

SEC. 568. Not more than $33,500,000 of thefunds appropriated in this Act under the head-ing ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ may be madeavailable to the Government of Turkey.




LIMITATION OF FUNDS FOR NORTH AMERICANDEVELOPMENT BANK

SEC. 568A. None of the funds appropriated inthis Act under the heading ‘‘North AmericanDevelopment Bank’’ and made available for theCommunity Adjustment and Investment Pro-gram shall be used for purposes other than thoseset out in the binational agreement establishingthe Bank.




ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

SEC. 571. The Secretary of the Treasury may,to fulfill commitments of the United States, sub-scribe to and make payments for shares of theAsian Development Bank in connection with thefourth general capital increase of the Bank. The

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10979October 26, 1995amount authorized to be appropriated for paid-in shares of the Bank is limited to $66,614,647;the amount authorized to be appropriated forpayment for callable shares of the Bank is lim-ited to $3,264,178,021. The amount to be paid inrespect of each subscription is authorized to beappropriated without fiscal year limitation. Anysubscription by the United States to the capitalstock of the Bank shall be effective only to suchextent or in such amounts as are provided in ad-vance inappropriations Acts.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

SEC. 572. In order to pay for the United Statescontribution to the tenth replenishment of theresources of the International Development As-sociation authorized in section 526 of PublicLaw 103–87, there is authorized to be appro-priated, without fiscal year limitation,$700,000,000 for payment by the Secretary of theTreasury.




SPECIAL DEBT RELIEF FOR THE POOREST

SEC. 573. (a) AUTHORITY TO REDUCE DEBT.—The President may reduce amounts owed to theUnited States (or any agency of the UnitedStates) by an eligible country as a result of—

(1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and222 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; or

(2) credits extended or guarantees issuedunder the Arms Export Control Act.

(b) LIMITATIONS.—(1) The authority provided by subsection (a)

may be exercised only to implement multilateralofficial debt relief and referendum agreements,commonly referred to as ‘‘Paris Club AgreedMinutes’’.

(2) The authority provided by subsection (a)may be exercised only in such amounts or tosuch extent as is provided in advance by appro-priations Acts.

(3) The authority provided by subsection (a)may be exercised only with respect to countrieswith heavy debt burdens that are eligible to bor-row from the International Development Asso-ciation, but not from the International Bank forReconstruction and Development, commonly re-ferred to as ‘‘IDA-only’ countries.

(c) CONDITIONS.—The authority provided bysubsection (a) may be exercised only with re-spect to a country whose government—

(1) does not have an excessive level of militaryexpenditures;

(2) has not repeatedly provided support foracts of international terrorism;

(3) is not failing to cooperate on internationalnarcotics control matters;

(4) (including its military or other securityforces) does not engage in a consistent patternof gross violations of internationally recognizedhuman rights; and

(5) is not ineligible for assistance because ofthe application of section 527 of the Foreign Re-lations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994 and1995.

(d) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—The authorityprovided by subsection (a) may be used onlywith regard to funds appropriated by this Actunder the heading ‘‘Debt Restructuring’’.

(e) CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS INAPPLICABLE.—Areduction of debt pursuant to subsection (a)shall not be considered assistance for purposesof any provision of law limiting assistance to acountry. The authority provided by subsection(a) may be exercised notwithstanding section620(r) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN DEBT BUYBACKS ORSALES

SEC. 574. (a) LOANS ELIGIBLE FOR SALE, RE-DUCTION, OR CANCELLATION.—

(1) AUTHORITY TO SELL, REDUCE, OR CANCELCERTAIN LOANS.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, the President may, in accord-ance with this section, sell to any eligible pur-chaser any concessional loan or portion thereofmade before January 1, 1995, pursuant to theForeign Assistance Act of 1961, to the govern-ment of any eligible country as defined in sec-tion 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of paymentfrom an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancelsuch loan or portion thereof, only for the pur-pose of facilitating—

(A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-develop-ment swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps; or

(B) a debt buyback by an eligible country ofits own qualified debt, only if the eligible coun-try uses an additional amount of the local cur-rency of the eligible country, equal to not lessthan 40 percent of the price paid or such debt bysuch eligible country, or the difference betweenthe price paid for such debt and the face valueof such debt, to support activities that link con-servation and sustainable use of natural re-sources with local community development, andchild survival and other child development, in amanner consistent with section 707 through 710of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale,reduction, or cancellation would not contraveneany term or condition of any prior agreement re-lating to such loan.

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Notwithstandingany other provision of law, the President shall,in accordance with this section, establish theterms and conditions under which loans may besold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this sec-tion.

(3) ADMINISTRATION.—The Facility, as definedin Section 702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961, shall notify the administrator of theagency primarily responsible for administeringpart I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 ofpurchasers that the President has determined tobe eligible, and shall direct such agency to carryout the sale, reduction, or cancellation of a loanpursuant to this section. Such agency shallmake an adjustment in its accounts to reflectthe sale, reduction, or cancellation.

(4) LIMITATION.—The authorities of this sub-section shall be available only to the extent thatappropriations for the cost of the modification,as defined in section 502 of the CongressionalBudget Act of 1974, are made in advance.

(b) DEPOSIT OF PROCEEDS.—The proceeds fromthe sale, reduction, or cancellation of any loansold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this sec-tion shall be deposited in the United States Gov-ernment account or accounts established for therepayment of such loan.

(c) ELIGIBLE PURCHASERS.—A loan may besold pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) only to apurchaser who presents plans satisfactory to thePresident for using the loan for the purpose ofengaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-de-velopment swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.

(d) DEBTOR CONSULTATION.—Before the saleto any eligible purchaser, or any reduction orcancellation pursuant to this section, of anyloan made to an eligible country, the Presidentshall consult with the country concerning theamount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceledand their uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or debt-for-natureswaps.

(e) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—The authorityprovided by subsection (a) may be used onlywith regard to funds appropriated by this Actunder the heading ‘‘Debt Restructuring’’.



In lieu of the section designation of saidamendment, insert: Sec. 575.; and the Senateagree to the same.




LIBERIA

SEC. 576. (a) Public Law 102–270 is amended—(1) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘Notwith-

standing section 620(q) of the Foreign AssistanceAct of 1961 or any other similar provision, the’’and inserting ‘‘The’’; and

(2) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ‘‘to imple-ment the Yamoussoukro peace accord’’.

(b) Funds appropriated by this Act may bemade available for assistance for Liberia not-withstanding section 620(q) of the Foreign As-sistance Act of 1961 and section 512 of this Act.




ANNUAL REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIALGROWTH

SEC. 577. (a) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—ThePresident shall submit to the appropriate con-gressional committees an annual report provid-ing a concise overview of the prospects for eco-nomic and social growth on a broad, equitable,and sustainable basis in the countries receivingeconomic assistance under title II of this Act.For each country, the report shall discuss thelaws, policies and practices of that country thatmost contribute to or detract from the achieve-ment of this kind of growth. The report shouldaddress relevant macroeconomic, microeconomic,social, legal, environmental, and political fac-tors and include criteria regarding wage andprice controls, State ownership of productionand distribution, State control of financial insti-tutions, trade and foreign investment, capitaland profit repatriation, tax and private prop-erty protection and a country’s commitment tostimulate education, health and human develop-ment.

(b) COUNTRIES.—The countries referred to insubsection (a) are countries—

(1) for which in excess of $5,000,000 has beenobligated during the previous fiscal year for as-sistance under sections 103 through 106, chapter10 and 11 of part I, and chapter 4 of part II ofthe Foreign Assistance of 1961, and under theSupport for East European Democracy Act of1989; or

(2) for which in excess of $1,000,000 has beenobligated during the previous fiscal year by theOverseas Private Investment Corporation.

(c) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary of Stateshall submit the report required by subsection(a) in consultation with the Secretary of theTreasury, the Administrator of the Agency forInternational Development, and the President ofthe Overseas Private Investment Corporation.The report shall be submitted with the annualcongressional presentation for appropriations.



In lieu of the section designation of saidamendment, insert: Sec. 578.; and the Senateagree to the same.




REPORTS REGARDING HONG KONG

SEC. 579. (a) Section 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5731) isamended in the text above paragraph (1) by in-serting ‘‘March 31, 1996,’’ after ‘‘March 31,1995,’’.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10980 October 26, 1995(b) In light of the deficiencies in reports sub-

mitted to the Congress pursuant to section 301 ofthe United States-Hong Kong Policy Act (22U.S.C. 5731), the Congress directs that the addi-tional report required to be submitted undersuch section by subsection (a) of this section in-clude detailed information on the status of, andother developments affecting, implementation ofthe Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Ques-tion of Hong Kong, including—

(1) the Basic Law and its consistency with theJoint Declaration;

(2) the openness and fairness of elections tothe legislature;

(3) the openness and fairness of the election ofthe chief executive and the executive’s account-ability to the legislature;

(4) the treatment of political parties;(5) the independence of the judiciary and its

ability to exercise the power of final judgmentover Hong Kong law; and

(6) the Bill of Rights.And the Senate agree to the same.Amendment numbered 175:That the House recede from its disagree-



SEC. 580. Notwithstanding any other provisionof the Act, $20,000,000 of the funds made avail-able under the headings ‘‘Development Assist-ance’’ and/or ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ may betransferred to, and merged with, the appropria-tions account entitled ‘‘International NarcoticsControl’’ and may be available for the same pur-poses for which funds in such account areavailable.




GUATEMALA

SEC. 581. (a) Funds provided in this Act maybe made available for the Guatemalan militaryor security forces, and the restrictions on Guate-mala under the headings ‘‘International Mili-tary Education and Training’’ and ‘‘ForeignMilitary Financing Program’’ shall not apply,only if the President determines and certifies tothe Congress that the Guatemalan military iscooperating with efforts to resolve human rightsabuses which elements of the Guatemalan mili-tary or security forces are alleged to have com-mitted, ordered or attempted to thwart the in-vestigation of.

(b) The prohibition contained in subsection(a) shall not apply to funds made available toimplement a cease-fire or peace agreement.

(c) Any funds made available pursuant tosubsections (a) or (b) shall be subject to the reg-ular notification procedures of the Committeeson Appropriations.

(d) Any funds made available pursuant tosubsections (a) and (b) for international militaryeducation and training may only be for ex-panded international military education andtraining.




EXTENSION OF TIED AID CREDIT PROGRAM

SEC. 582. (a) Section 10(c)(2) of the Export-Im-port Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635i–3(c)(2) isamended by striking ‘‘1995’’ and inserting‘‘1997’’.

(b) Section 10(e) of the Export-Import BankAct of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635i-3(e)) is amended bystriking ‘‘1993, 1994, and 1995’’ and inserting‘‘1996 and 1997’’.




MORATORIUM ON USE OF ANTIPERSONNELLANDMINES

SEC. 583. (a) UNITED STATES MORATORIUM.—For a period of one year beginning three yearsafter the date of enactment of this Act, theUnited States shall not use antipersonnel land-mines except along internationally recognizednational borders or in demilitarized zones with-in a perimeter marked area that is monitored bymilitary personnel and protected by adequatemeans to ensure the exclusion of civilians.

(b) DEFINITION AND EXEMPTIONS.—For thepurposes of this section:

(1) ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINE.—The term‘‘antipersonnel landmine’’ means any munitionplaced under, on, or near the ground or othersurface area, delivered by artillery, rocket, mor-tar, or similar means, or dropped from an air-craft and which is designed, constructed oradapted to be detonated or exploded by the pres-ence, proximity, or contact of a person.

(2) EXEMPTIONS.—the term ‘‘antipersonnellandmine’’ does not include command detonatedClaymore munitions.




EXTENSION OF AU PAIR PROGRAMS

SEC. 584. Section 8 of the Eisenhower Ex-change Fellowship Act of 1990 is amended in thelast sentence by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1995’’ andinserting ‘‘fiscal year 1996’’.




SANCTIONS AGAINST COUNTRIESHARBORING WAR CRIMINALS

SEC. 585. (a) BILATERAL ASSISTANCE.—Fundsappropriated by this Act under the Foreign As-sistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export ControlAct may not be provided for any country de-scribed in subsection (c).

(b) MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.—The Sec-retary of the Treasury shall instruct the UnitedStates executive directors of the international fi-nancial institutions to work in opposition to,and vote against, any extension by such institu-tions of financing or financial or technical as-sistance to any country described in subsection(c).

(c) SANCTIONED COUNTRIES.—A country de-scribed in this subsection is a country the gov-ernment of which knowingly grants sanctuaryto persons in its territory for the purpose ofevading prosecution, where such persons—

(1) have been indicted by the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwan-da, or any other international tribunal withsimilar standing under international law, or

(2) have been indicted for war crimes or crimesagainst humanity committed during the periodbeginning March 23, 1933 and ending on May 8,1945 under the direction of, or in associationwith—

(A) the Nazi government of Germany;(B) any government in any area occupied by

the military forces of the Nazi government ofGermany;

(C) any government which was establishedwith the assistance or cooperation of the Nazigovernment; or

(D) any government which was an ally of theNazi government of Germany.



LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR HAITI

SEC. 586. (a) LIMITATION.—None of the fundsappropriated or otherwise made available bythis Act, may be provided to the Government ofHaiti until the President reports to Congressthat—

(1) the Government is conducting thorough in-vestigations of extrajudicial and politicalkillings; and

(2) the Government is cooperating with U.S.authorities in the investigations of political andextrajudicial killings.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construedto restrict the provision of humanitarian or elec-toral assistance.

(c) The President may waive the requirementsof this section if he determines and certifies tothe appropriate committees of Congress that it isin the national interest of the United States ornecessary to assure the safe and timely with-drawal of American forces from Haiti.



In lieu of the section designation of saidamendment, insert: SEC. 587. ; and the Senateagree to the same.



In lieu of the section designation of saidamendment, insert:

NATO PARTICIPATION

SEC. 588. REVISIONS TO PROGRAM TO FACILI-TATE TRANSITION TO NATO MEMBERSHIP.—

(a) ELIGIBLE COUNTIES.—Subsection (d) of sec-tion 203 of the NATO Participation Act of 1994(title II of Public Law 103–447; 22 U.S.C. 1928note) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(d) DESIGNATION OF ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES.—‘‘(1) INITIAL PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW AND DES-

IGNATION.—Within 60 days of the enactment ofthe NATO Participation Act Amendments of1995, the President should evaluate the degree towhich any country emerging from communistdomination which has expressed its interest injoining NATO meets the criteria set forth inparagraph (3), and may designate one or moreof these countries as eligible to receive assist-ance under the program established under sub-section (a). The President shall, at the time ofdesignation of any country pursuant to thisparagraph, determine and report to the Commit-tees on International Relations and Appropria-tions of the House of Representatives and theCommittees on Foreign Relations and Appro-priations of the Senate with respect to eachcountry so designated that such country meetsthe criteria set forth in paragraph (3).

‘‘(2) OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES EMERGINGFROM COMMUNIST DOMINATION.—In addition tothe countries designated pursuant to paragraph(1), the President may at any time designateother European countries emerging from com-munist domination as eligible to receive assist-ance under the program established under sub-section (a). The President shall, at the time ofdesignation of any country pursuant to thisparagraph, determine and report to the Commit-tees on International Relations and Appropria-tions of the House of Representatives and the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10981October 26, 1995Committees on Foreign Relations and Appro-priations of the Senate with respect to eachcountry so designated that such country meetsthe criteria set forth in paragraph (3).

‘‘(3) CRITERIA.—The criteria referred to inparagraphs (1) and (2) are, with respect to eachcountry, that the country—‘‘(A) has made significant progress toward es-tablishing—

‘‘(i) shared values and interests;‘‘(ii) democratic governments;‘‘(iii) free market economies;‘‘(iv) civilian control of the military, of the po-

lice, and of intelligence service, so that these or-ganizations do not pose a threat to democraticinstitutions, neighboring countries, or the secu-rity of NATO or the United States;

‘‘(v) adherence to the rule of law and to thevalues, principles, and political commitments setforth in the Helsinki Final Act and other dec-larations by the members of the Organization onSecurity and Cooperation in Europe;

‘‘(vi) commitment to further the principles ofNATO and to contribute to the security of theNorth Atlantic area.

‘‘(vii) commitment to protecting the rights ofall their citizens and respecting the territorialintegrity of their neighbors;

‘‘(viii) commitment and ability to accept theobligations, responsibilities, and costs of NATOmembership; and

‘‘(ix) commitment and ability to implement in-frastructure development activities they will fa-cilitate participation in and support for NATOmilitary activities;‘‘(B) is likely, within five years of such deter-

mination, to be in a position to further the prin-ciples of the North Atlantic Treaty and to con-tribute to the security of the North Atlanticarea; and‘‘(C) is not ineligible to receive assistance

under section 552 of the Foreign Operations, Ex-port Financing, and Related Programs Appro-priations Act, 1996, with respect to transfers ofequipment to a country the government ofwhich the Secretary of State has determined isa terrorist government for purposes of section40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act.’’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(A) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 203 of

such Act are amended by striking ‘‘countries de-scribed in such subsection’’ each of the twoplaces it appears and inserting ‘‘countries des-ignated under subsection (d)’’.(B) Subsection (e) of section 203 of such Act is

amended by inserting ‘‘(22 U.S.C. 2394–1), andshall include with such notification a memoran-dum of justification with respect to the proposeddesignation’’ before the period at the end.

(b) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Section 203(c) ofsuch Act is amended by inserting after para-graph (4) the following new paragraphs:‘‘(5) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating tothe Economic Support Fund).‘‘(6) Funds appropriated under the ‘‘Non-

proliferation and Disarmament Fund’’ account.‘‘(7) Assistance under chapter 6 of part II of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating topeacekeeping operations and other programs).‘‘(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, including any restrictions in sections 516and 519 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, asamended, the President may direct the crating,packing, handling, and transportation of excessdefense articles provided pursuant to para-graphs (1) and (2) of this subsection withoutcharge to the recipient of such articles.’’

(c) EFFECT ON OTHER AUTHORITIES.—Section203 of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (TitleII of Public Law 103–447, 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), isamended to add a new subsection (g) to read asfollows:

‘‘(g) EFFECT ON OTHER AUTHORITIES.—Noth-ing in this Act shall affect the eligibility ofcountries to participate under other provisionsof law in programs described in this Act.’’.

(d) ANNUAL REPORT.—Section 205 of theNATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Pub-lic Law 103–447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended:

(1) by inserting ‘‘ANNUAL’’ in the sectionheading before the first word;(2) by inserting ‘‘annual’’ after ‘‘include in

the’’ in the matter preceding paragraph (1); and(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ‘‘and

other ’’ and all that follows through the periodat the end in both instances inserting in lieuthereof ‘‘and any other country designated bythe President pursuant to section 203(d).’’.

TITLE VI—MIDDLE EAST PEACEFACILITATION ACT OF 1995

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 601. This title may be cited as the ‘‘Mid-dle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995’’.

FINDINGS

SEC. 602. The Congress finds that—(1) the Palestine Liberation Organization

(hereafter the ‘‘P.L.O.’’) has recognized theState of Israel’s right to exist in peace and secu-rity, accepted United Nations Security CouncilResolutions 242 and 338, committed itself to thepeace process and peaceful coexistence with Is-rael, free from violence and all other acts whichendanger peace and stability, and assumed re-sponsibility over all P.L.O. elements and person-nel in order to assure their compliance, preventviolations, and discipline violators;

(2) Israel has recognized the P.L.O. as therepresentative of the Palestinian people;

(3) Israel and the P.L.O. signed a Declarationof Principles on Interim Self-Government Ar-rangements (hereafter the ‘‘Declaration of Prin-ciples’’) on September 13, 1993 at the WhiteHouse;

(4) Israel and the P.L.O. signed an Agreementon the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (here-after the ‘‘Gaza-Jericho Agreement’’) on May 4,1994 which established a Palestinian Authorityfor the Gaza and Jericho areas;

(5) Israel and the P.L.O. signed an Agreementon Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Respon-sibilities (hereafter the ‘‘Early EmpowermentAgreement’’) on August 29, 1994 which providedfor the transfer to the Palestinian Authority ofcertain powers and responsibilities in the WestBank outside of the Jericho Area;

(6) under the terms of the Israeli-PalestinianInterim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza(hereafter the ‘‘Interim Agreement) signed onSeptember 28, 1995, the Declaration of Prin-ciples, the Gaza-Jericho Agreement and theEarly Empowerment Agreement, the powers andresponsibilities of the Palestinian Authority areto be assumed by an elected Palestinian Councilwith jurisdiction in the West Bank and GazaStrip in accordance with the Interim Agreement;

(7) permanent status negotiations relating tothe West Bank and Gaza Strip are scheduled tobegin by May 1996;

(8) the Congress has, since the conclusion ofthe Declaration of Principles and the P.L.O.’srenunciation of terrorism, provided authoritiesto the President to suspend certain statutory re-strictions relating to the P.L.O., subject to Pres-idential certifications that the P.L.O. has con-tinued to abide by commitments made in and inconnection with or resulting from the good faithimplementation of, the Declaration of Prin-ciples;

(9) the P.L.O. commitments relevant to Presi-dential certifications have included commit-ments to renounce and condemn terrorism, tosubmit to the Palestinian National Council forformer approval the necessary changes to thosearticles of the Palestinian Covenant which callfor Israel’s destruction, and to prevent acts ofterrorism and hostilities against Israel; and

(10) the United States is resolute in its deter-mination to ensure that in providing assistanceto Palestinians living under the jurisdiction ofthe Palestinian Authority or elsewhere, thebeneficiaries of such assistance shall be held tothe same standard of financial accountabilityand management control as any other recipientof United States assistance.

SENSE OF CONGRESS

SEC. 603. It is the sense of the Congress thatthe P.L.O. must do far more to demonstrate anirrevocable denunciation of terrorism and en-

sure a peaceful settlement of the Middle Eastdispute, and in particular it must—

(1) submit to the Palestinian National Councilfor formal approval the necessary changes tothose articles of the Palestinian National Cov-enant which call for Israel’s destruction;

(2) make greater efforts to pre-empt acts ofterror, discipline violators and contribute tostemming the violence that has resulted in thedeaths of over 140 Israeli and United States citi-zens since the signing of the Declaration ofPrinciples;

(3) prohibit participation in its activities andin the Palestinian Authority and its successorsby any groups or individuals which continue topromote and commit acts of terrorism;

(4) cease all anti-Israel rhetoric, which poten-tially undermines the peace process;

(5) confiscate all unlicensed weapons;(6) transfer and cooperate in transfer proceed-

ings relating to any person accused by Israel toacts of terrorism; and

(7) respect civil liberties, human rights anddemocratic norms.

AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS

SEC. 604. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to sub-section (b), beginning on the date of enactmentof this Act and for eighteen months thereafter,the President may suspend for a period of notmore than 6 months at a time any provision oflaw specified in subsection (d). Any such sus-pension shall cease to be effective after 6months, or at such earlier date as the Presidentmay specify.

(b) CONDITIONS.—(1) CONSULTATIONS.—Prior to each exercise of

the authority provided in subsection (a) or cer-tification pursuant to subsection (c), the Presi-dent shall consult with the relevant congres-sional committees. The President may not exer-cise that authority or make such certificationuntil 30 days after a written policy justificationis submitted to the relevant congressional com-mittees.

(2) PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION.—The Presi-dent may exercise the authority provided in sub-section (a) only if the President certifies to therelevant congressional committees each time heexercises such authority that—

(A) it is in the national interest of the UnitedStates to exercise such authority;

(B) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority,and successor entities are complying with all thecommitments described in paragraph (4); and

(C) funds provided pursuant to the exercise ofthis authority and the authorities under section583(a) of Public Law 103–236 and section 3(a) ofPublic Law 103–125 have been used for the pur-poses for which they were intended.

(3) REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUING P.L.O. COM-PLIANCE.—(A) The President shall ensure thatP.L.O. performance is continuously monitoredand if the President at any time determines thatthe P.L.O. has not continued to comply with allthe commitments described in paragraph (4), heshall so notify the relevant congressional com-mittees and any suspension under subsection (a)of a provision of law specified in subsection (d)shall cease to be effective.

(B) Beginning six months after the date of en-actment of this Act, if the President on the basisof the continuous monitoring of the P.L.O.’sperformance determines that the P.L.O. is notcomplying with the requirements described insubsection (c), he shall notify the relevant con-gressional committees and no assistance shall beprovided pursuant to the exercise by the Presi-dent of the authority provided by subsection (a)until such time as the President makes the cer-tification provided for in subsection (c).

(4) P.L.O. COMMITMENTS DESCRIBED.—Thecommitments referred to in paragraphs (2)(B)and (3)(A) are the commitments made by theP.L.O.—

(A) in its letter of September 9, 1993, to thePrime Minister of Israel; in its letter of Septem-ber 9, 1993, to the Foreign Minister of Norwayto—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10982 October 26, 1995(i) recognize the right of the State of Israel to

exist in peace and security;(ii) accept United Nations Security Council

Resolutions 242 and 338;(iii) renounce the use of terrorism and other

acts of violence;(iv) assume responsibility over all P.L.O. ele-

ments and personnel in order to assure theircompliance, prevent violations and disciplineviolators;

(v) call upon the Palestinian people in theWest Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in thesteps leading to the normalization of life, reject-ing violence and terrorism, and contributing topeace and stability; and

(vi) submit to the Palestinian National Coun-cil for formal approval the necessary changes tothe Palestinian National Covenant eliminatingcalls for Israel’s destruction, and

(B) in, and resulting from, the good faith im-plementation of the Declaration of Principles,including good faith implementation of subse-quent agreements with Israel, with particularattention to the objective of preventing terror-ism, as reflected in the provisions of the InterimAgreement concerning—

(i) prevention of acts of terrorism and legalmeasures against terrorists, including the arrestand prosecution of individuals suspected of per-petrating acts of violence and terror;

(ii) abstention from and prevention of incite-ment, including hostile propaganda;

(iii) operation of armed forces other than thePalestinian Police;

(iv) possession, manufacture, sale, acquisitionor importation of weapons;

(v) employment of police who have been con-victed of serious crimes or have been found to beactively involved in terrorist activities subse-quent to their employment;

(vi) transfers to Israel of individuals suspectedof, charged with, or convicted of an offense thatfalls within Israeli criminal jurisdiction;

(vii) cooperation with the government of Israelin criminal matters, including cooperation inthe conduct of investigations; and

(viii) exercise of powers and responsibilitiesunder the agreement with due regard to inter-nationally accepted norms and principles ofhuman rights and the rule of law.

(5) POLICY JUSTIFICATION.—As part of thePresident’s written policy justification to be sub-mitted to the relevant Congressional Committeespursuant to paragraph (1), the President will re-port on—

(A) the manner in which the P.L.O. has com-plied with the commitments specified in para-graph (4), including responses to individual actsof terrorism and violence, actions to disciplineperpetrators of terror and violence, and actionsto preempt acts of terror and violence;

(B) the extent to which the P.L.O. has ful-filled the requirements specified in subsection(c);

(C) actions that the P.L.O. has taken with re-gard to the Arab League boycott of Israel;

(D) the status and activities of the P.L.O. of-fice in the United States;

(E) all United States assistance which bene-fits, directly or indirectly, the projects, pro-grams, or activities of the Palestinian Authorityin Gaza, Jericho, or any other area it may con-trol, since September 13, 1993, including—

(i) the obligation and disbursal of such assist-ance, by project, activity, and date, as well asby prime contractor and all subcontractors;

(ii) the organizations or individuals respon-sible for the receipt and obligation of such as-sistance;

(iii) the intended beneficiaries of such assist-ance; and

(iv) the amount of international donor fundsthat benefit the P.L.O. or the Palestinian Au-thority in Gaza, Jericho, or any other area theP.L.O. or the Palestinian Authority may con-trol, and to which the United States is a con-tributor; and

(F) statements by senior official of the P.L.O.,the Palestinian Authority, and successor enti-

ties that question the right of Israel to exist orurge armed conflict with or terrorism against Is-rael or its citizens, including an assessment ofthe degree to which such statements reflect offi-cial policy of the P.L.O., the Palestinian Au-thority, or successor entities.

(c) REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUED PROVISIONOF ASSISTANCE.—Six months after the enactmentof this Act, United States assistance shall not beprovided pursuant to the exercise by the Presi-dent of the authority provided by subsection (a),unless and until the President determines and socertifies to the Congress that—

(1) if the Palestinian Council has been electedand assumed its responsibilities, it has, within 2months, effectively disavowed and thereby nul-lified the articles of the Palestine National Cov-enant which call for Israel’s destruction, unlessthe necessary changes to the Covenant have al-ready been approved by the Palestine NationalCouncil;

(2) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, andsuccessor entities have exercised their authorityresolutely to establish the necessary enforcementinstitutions; including laws, police, and a judi-cial system, for apprehending, transferring,prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning terror-ists;

(3) the P.L.O., has limited participation in thePalestinian Authority and its successors to indi-viduals and groups that neither engage in norpractice terrorism or violence in the implementa-tion of their political goals;

(4) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, andsuccessor entities have not provided any finan-cial or material assistance, or training to anygroup, whether or not affiliated with theP.L.O., to carry out actions inconsistent withthe Declaration of Principles, particularly actsof terrorism against Israel;

(5) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, orsuccessor entities have cooperated in good faithwith Israeli authorities in—

(A) the preemption of acts of terrorism;(B) the apprehension, trial, and punishment

of individuals who have planned or committedterrorist acts subject to the jurisdiction of thePalestinian Authority or any successor entity;and

(C) the apprehension of and transfer to Israeliauthorities of individual suspected of, chargedwith, or convicted of, planning or committingterrorist acts subject to Israeli jurisdiction in ac-cordance with the specific provisions of the In-terim Agreement;

(6) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, andsuccessor entities have exercised their authorityresolutely to enact and implement laws requir-ing the disarming of civilians not specifically li-censed to possess or carry weapons;

(7) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, andsuccessor entities have not funded, either par-tially or wholly, or have ceased funding, eitherpartially or wholly, any office, or other presenceof the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem unlessestablished by specific agreement between Israeland the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, orsuccessor entities;

(8) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, andsuccessor entities are cooperating fully with theGovernment of the United States on the provi-sion of information on United States nationalsknown to have been held at any time by theP.L.O. or factions thereof; and

(9) the P.L.O., the Palestinian Authority, andsuccessor entities have not, without the agree-ment of the Government of Israel, taken anysteps that will change the status of Jerusalem orthe West Bank and Gaza Strip, pending the out-come of the permanent status negotiations.

(d) PROVISIONS THAT MAY BE SUSPENDED.—The provisions that may be suspended under theauthority of subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227) as it applies with respectto the P.L.O. or entities associated with it.

(2) Section 114 of the Department of State Au-thorization Act, fiscal years 1984 and 1985 (22U.S.C. 287e note) as it applies with respect tothe P.L.O. or entities associated with it.

(3) Section 1003 of the Foreign Relations Au-thorization Act, fiscal years 1988 and 1989 (22U.S.C. 5202).

(4) Section 37 of the Bretton Woods AgreementAct (22 U.S.C. 286W) as it applies on the grant-ing to the P.L.O. of observer status or other offi-cial status at any meeting sponsored by or asso-ciated with the International Monetary Fund.As used in this paragraph, the term ‘‘other offi-cial status’’ does not include membership in theInternational Monetary Fund.

(e) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this title:(1) RELEVANT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—

The term ‘‘relevant congressional committees’’mean—

(A) the Committee on International Relations,the Committee on Banking and Financial Serv-ices, and the Committee on Appropriations ofthe House of Representatives; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations andthe Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(2) UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.—The term‘‘United States assistance’’ means any form ofgrant, loan, loan guarantee, credit, insurance,in kind assistance, or any other form of assist-ance.

TRANSITION PROVISION

SEC. 605. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 583(a) ofthe Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FiscalYears 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–236) isamended by striking ‘‘November 1, 1995’’ and in-sert ‘‘January 1, 1996’’.

(b) CONSULTATION.—For purposes of any exer-cise of the authority provided in section 583(a)of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fis-cal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–236)prior to November 15, 1995, the written policyjustification dated June 1, 1995, and submittedto the Congress in accordance with section583(b)(1) of such Act, and the consultations as-sociated with such policy justification, shall bedeemed to satisfy the requirements of section583(b)(1) of such Act.

REPORTING REQUIREMENT

SEC. 606. Section 804(b) of the PLO Commit-ments Compliance Act of 1989 (title VIII of Pub-lic Law 101–246) is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), bystriking ‘‘section (3)(b)(1) of the Middle EastPeace Facilitation Act of 1994’’ and inserting‘‘section 604(b)(1) of the Middle East Peace Fa-cilitation Act of 1995’’; and

(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘section(4)(a) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Actof 1994 (Oslo commitments)’’ and inserting ‘‘sec-tion 604(b)(4) of the Middle East Peace Facilita-tion Act of 1995’’.

And the Senate agreed to the same.The committee of conference report in dis-

agreement amendment numbered 115.SONNY CALLAHAN,JOHN EDWARD PORTER,BOB LIVINGSTON,JIM LIGHTFOOT,FRANK R. WOLF,RON PACKARD,JOE KNOLLENBERG,MICHAEL FORBES,JIM BUNN,CHARLES WILSON,SIDNEY R. YATES,NANCY PELOSI,ESTEBAN E. TORRES,DAVID OBEY.

Managers on the part of the House.

MITCH MCCONNELL,ARLEN SPECTER,CONNIE MACK,JAMES M. JEFFORDS,JUDD GREGG,RICHARD SHELBY,ROBERT F. BENNETT,MARK O. HATFIELD,PATRICK LEAHY,DANIEL K. INOUYE,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10983October 26, 1995FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,TOM HARKIN,BARBARA A. MIKULSKI,PATTY MURRAY,ROBERT C. BYRD.

Managers on the part of the Senate.

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OFTHE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

The managers on the part of the House andthe Senate at the conference on the disagree-ing votes of the two Houses on the amend-ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1868)making appropriations for foreign oper-ations, export financing, and related pro-grams for the fiscal year ending September30, 1996, submit the following joint statementto the House and Senate in explanation ofthe effect of the action agreed upon by themanagers and recommended in the accom-panying conference report:

TITLE I—EXPORT AND INVESTMENTASSISTANCE

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

SUBSIDY APPROPRIATION

Amendment No. 1: Appropriates $786,551,000for the subsidy appropriation of the Export-Import Bank as proposed by the House in-stead of $795,000,000 as proposed by the Sen-ate. Deletes language proposed by the Senaterelating to the proposed relocation of theAgency for International Development to thebuilding at the Federal Triangle. This mat-ter is addressed in amendment No. 31.

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Amendment No. 2: Appropriates $45,614,000for the administrative expenses of the Ex-port-Import Bank instead of $45,228,000 asproposed by the House and $46,000,000 as pro-posed by the Senate.

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

NONCREDIT ACCOUNT

Amendment No. 3: Deletes Senate limita-tion of $20,000 for official reception and rep-resentation expenses and restores House lim-itation of $35,000.


NONCEDIT ACCOUNT

Amendment No. 4: Inserts Senate limita-tion of $26,000,000 for administrative expensesfor the Overseas Private Investment Cor-poration instead of House limitation of$26,500,000.


PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Amendment No. 5: Appropriates $72,000,000for the costs of direct and guaranteed loansinstead of $69,500,000 as proposed by theHouse and $79,000,000 as proposed by the Sen-ate.


PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Amendment No. 6: Deletes Senate languagewhich allowed for the transfer of funds fromthe OPIC noncredit account in order to fundprogram activities. The House language pro-vides for an appropriation from the generalfund of the Treasury.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIALINSTITUTIONS

CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCECORPORATION

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENTERPRISE FOR THEAMERICAS MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND

Amendment No. 7: Deletes House languageproviding appropriations for the Inter-national Finance Corporations and for theContribution to the Enterprise for the Amer-icas Multilateral Investment Fund. Thesematters are addressed in amendments no. 79,82, and 88.

TITLE II—BILATERAL ECONOMIC AS-SISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TOTHE PRESIDENTAGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

CHILD SURVIVAL AND DISEASE PROGRAMS

Amendment No. 8: Inserts language provid-ing that not less than $484,000,000 of thefunds appropriated in title II, and in title IVunder ‘‘International Organizations and Pro-grams’’, shall be available for Child Survivaland Disease Programs. The House had pro-posed an appropriation of $592,660,000 for a‘‘Children and Disease Programs Fund’’. TheSenate bill contained no provision on thismatter.

The managers support the maintenance ofchild survival ($300,000,000), infectious dis-ease programs, and funding for UNICEF($100,000,000), as indicated in the House re-port. In addition to funding for child survivalprograms included in the earmark in theconference agreement, $30,000,000 would beavailable from ‘‘International Disaster As-sistance’’ and $16,000,000 would be providedfrom ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ for pro-grams in Egypt.

The managers support the House and Sen-ate report language regarding the need fortargeted polio eradication efforts, and rec-ommend that $20,000,000 be made availablefor purchase and delivery of polio vaccines.The managers urge that funding for HIV/AIDS be maintained at the current level.

The conferees believe that basic educationprograms are essential both to the well-beingof the world’s children and to achieving thelong-term economic goals of economicgrowth and trade. In particular, girls’ edu-cation has multiple benefits, including im-proved child survival and overall familyhealth. The conferees define basic educationto include early childhood and primary edu-cation. The conferees strongly believe thatstrong support for these programs should bemaintained and that $108,000,000 should bemaintained for children’s basic educationprograms.

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 9: Inserts language des-ignating a combined development assistanceaccount ‘‘Development Assistance’’ insteadof ‘‘Development Assistance Fund’’ as pro-posed by the House and ‘‘Economic Assist-ance’’ as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 10: Appropriates$1,675,000,000 for ‘‘Development Assistance’’.The House had proposed that funding for de-velopment assistance activities by appro-priated in three accounts, ‘‘Development As-sistance Fund’’, ‘‘Children and Disease Pro-grams Fund’’ and ‘‘Development Fund for Af-rica’’. The Senate proposed that developmentassistance activities, certain other activi-ties, and non-Camp David funding from‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ be appropriatedin an account entitled ‘‘Economic Assist-ance’’. The conference agreement includesdevelopment assistance activities, includingsupport for the Inter-American Foundationand the African Development Foundation, inone account and returns non-Camp Davidfunding to ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’.

Funds are recommended for the continuedparticipation of AID in the International Co-operative Biodiversity Group program at alevel as close to the current level as possible.

The conferees continue to support the Uni-versity Development Linkages Program. Inaddition, the conferees endorse the House re-port language regarding a proposal to estab-lish an electronic interconnection involvingcolleges and universities in Latin America.

The conferees urge that the Office of En-ergy, Environment and Technology at AIDbe funded at the current level and rec-ommend that AID continue funding for Of-fice of Energy, Environment and Technology

activities that promote power sector privat-ization, innovative technologies, renewableenergy, and energy efficiency. The confereesreaffirm support for programs that promoteeconomic development, reduce environ-mental pollution, and enhance United Statesindustrial leadership in these areas.

The managers suggest that AID maintainthe current dollar level of support for agri-culture and agricultural research, includingbut not limited to, $20,000,000 for the collabo-rative research support program. Also, be-cause of the importance of livestock to theeconomies of developing countries and towomen-run households, the conferees urgeAID to support appropriate livestock re-search.

The conferees urge AID to give a high pri-ority to programs that directly support sus-tainable economic growth in developingcountries. In that regard, the managers urgethat AID expand efforts to institutionalizecommunity participation at the local levelthrough core support for organizations thatpromote self-governance. In addition, organi-zations such as the Institute for Liberty andDemocracy can help stimulate private sec-tor-led growth by helping to apply to othersettings the experiences in Peru in generat-ing economic growth through land titling,removal of cumbersome regulations on busi-ness, and guaranteeing security of invest-ment.

The managers support the AID EconomicGrowth Center’s emphasis on economic andinstitutional reform. The managers encour-age the Growth Center to identify the mostserious domestic government barriers pre-venting AID recipients from achieving highlevels of growth and recommend that AIDpropose appropriate free-market solutions.

The managers endorse the House reportlanguage regarding the need to maintain de-velopment assistance support for LatinAmerica.

The managers support funding for manage-ment and training programs with ports inthe developing world. The conferees urgeAID and the State Department to work withU.S. ports and private port organizations,such as the International Port DevelopmentCouncil, Inc., to leverage the skills and ex-pertise of U.S. seaport managers to improveport infrastructure overseas. Bilateral portcooperation will expand U.S. trade opportu-nities and improve the ability of developingcountries to participate in the modern, glob-al economy.

The conferees reaffirm their strong supportfor U.S. assistance programs that recognizethe central role played by women in foster-ing economic development. The confereesurge AID to sustain support for the Office ofWomen in Development, including the con-tinued provision of funds from the NIS as-sistance program.

Amendment No. 11: Inserts language pro-viding that funds for the Inter-AmericanFoundation and the African DevelopmentFoundation shall be made available (and ap-portioned directly to said foundations) fromfunds appropriated in ‘‘Development Assist-ance’’. Up to $20,000,000 may be made avail-able for the Inter-American Foundation andup to $11,500,000 may be made available forthe African Development Foundation. Sen-ate language on the proportionality of fundsmade available through the account is de-leted.

The conference agreement also providesthat up to $25,000,000 may be made availableto implement section 667 of the Foreign As-sistance Act, and that not less than 65 per-cent of the funds made available for familyplanning assistance shall be made availabledirectly to the Agency for International De-velopment’s central Office of Population and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10984 October 26, 1995shall be programmed by that office for fam-ily planning activities. The Senate had pro-posed that not less than $350,000,000 be madeavailable for the latter activities.

The conference agreement also includesSenate language regarding the relative fund-ing levels for activities of private and vol-untary organizations and cooperatives, butdoes not include Senate language requiring areprogramming notification to waive suchlanguage. House language on this matter isaddressed in amendment No. 21.

FAMILY PLANNING ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 12: Inserts language thatdefines the term ‘‘motivate’’ for purposes ofobligating funds available for family plan-ning assistance. The conference agreementmodifies Senate language by removing thewords ‘‘including abortion’’. This change isnot intended to narrow the scope of any ofthe pregnancy options included in last year’sact. The House bill did not address this mat-ter.

DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR AFRICA

Amendment No. 13: Deletes House lan-guage referring to the ‘‘Development Fundfor Africa’’. The conference agreement doesnot include a separate appropriations ac-count for this fund, and the reference is nolonger necessary. This matter is further ad-dressed in amendments no. 10, 11 and 17.

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURALDEVELOPMENT

Amendment No. 14: Inserts Senate lan-guage increasing the limitation on fundsthat may be transferred to ‘‘InternationalOrganizations and Programs’’ for a contribu-tion to the International Fund for Agricul-tural Development from $15,000,000, as pro-posed by the House, to $30,000,000, as pro-posed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 15: Deletes Senate lan-guage regarding a prohibition on funds forZaire and an earmark for the InternationalFertilizer Development Center. The prohibi-tion on funding for Zaire is addressed inamendment no. 36.

The managers support funding for the cen-ter as proposed in the Senate amendment.

UNITED STATES TELECOMMUNICATIONSTRAINING INSTITUTE

Amendment No. 16: Inserts language pro-viding that not less than $650,000 should beprovided for support of the United StatesTelecommunications Training Institute. TheSenate language would have mandated fund-ing at $800,000. The House bill contained noprovision on this matter.

DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR AFRICA

Amendment No. 17: Deletes House lan-guage providing for a separate ‘‘DevelopmentFund for Africa’’ account. Funding for thispurpose, and a statutory reference to ‘‘Devel-opment Fund for Africa’’, has been includedin ‘‘Development Assistance’’ in amend-ments no. 10 and 11.

The merger of bilateral development as-sistance funding into a single appropriationsaccount is designed to allow the Administra-tion the flexibility to respond to changingpriorities with fewer resources. However, itdoes not indicate a lessening of interest inAfrica; the managers expect that a majorportion of the resources provided in the ‘‘De-velopment Assistance’’ account will be com-mitted to programs in sub-Saharan Africa,and have included bill language to requirethe President to seek to ensure that theamount of funds available for Africa for de-velopment assistance in fiscal year 1996 is insubstantially the same proportion to thetotal amount available for development as-sistance as the funding provided in fiscalyear 1995. Activities in Africa should be man-aged under the authorities of chapter 10 ofpart I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The managers anticipate that AID willcontinue the reforms undertaken under theDevelopment Fund for Africa that focus itslimited funds on a smaller number of coun-tries where the governments are committedto development policies that will promoteequitable and sustainable economic growth.Concurrently, the managers expect that Af-rica humanitarian resources will be managedin a way that promotes long-term develop-ment, as development resources are pro-grammed to minimize short-term crises. TheGreater Horn of Africa initiative is a goodexample of such an effort.

CYPRUS

Amendment No. 18: Inserts language ear-marking $15,000,000 for Cyprus to be usedonly for scholarships, scholarship adminis-trative costs, bicommunal projects, andmeasures aimed at reunification. The con-ference agreement is similar to Senate lan-guage, but allows for funds to be derivedfrom both ‘‘Development Assistance’’ and‘‘Economic Support Fund’’, and provides au-thority to use funds for administrative costs.

BURMA

Amendment No. 19: Inserts language pro-viding that not less than $2,380,000 of thefunds appropriated in ‘‘Development Assist-ance’’ and in ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ willbe available for programs in Burma. Thesefunds would be used to strengthen democ-racy, support humanitarian assistance, andprovide for support to a nongovernmental or-ganization for a crop substitution project inBurma.

For the past two years, the conferees haveurged the Administration to provide mean-ingful levels of assistance to refugees and ex-iles supporting the restoration of democracyin Burma. Although the Administrationagreed in writing to obligate no less than$1,000,000 in such support for fiscal year 1995,the commitment to the Congress was not ful-filled.

The release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi rep-resents a unique opportunity to support ini-tiatives to implement the results of the 1990elections and strengthen free market prin-ciples and practices. The conferees have des-ignated not less than $2,380,000 to supportstudents, organizations, and ethnic groups,including the Karen, Karenni, and Kachindedicated to these goals. The conferees di-rect AID and the Department of State, inconsultation with the Congress, to prepare areport sixty days after enactment of this Acton a plan for the expenditure of these re-sources.

PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

Amendment No. 20: Inserts Senate lan-guage allowing the Administrator of AID towaive, on a case-by-case basis, the require-ment that no funds may be made available toprivate and voluntary organizations whichobtain less than 20 percent of total fundingfor international activities from sourcesother than the United States government.The managers agree such authority shouldonly be used in emergency or extraordinarysituations, and that the Administratorshould report to the Committees on Appro-priations each time the waiver is used.

Amendment No. 21: Restores House lan-guage stating that funds appropriated orotherwise made available under title IIshould be made available to private and vol-untary organizations at a level which isequivalent to the level provided in fiscalyear 1995. This matter is also addressed inamendment no. 11.

INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 22: Appropriates$181,000,000 for disaster assistance instead of$200,000,000 as proposed by the House and$175,000,000 as proposed by the Senate inamendment no. 29.

The conference agreement also insertsSenate language (proposed in amendment no.29) providing that $40,000,000 should be madeavailable for emergency humanitarian as-sistance in the former Yugoslavia (of whichnot less than $6,000,000 shall be availableonly for Kosova) and modifies such languageto allow these funds to come from any appro-priations account within title II of this Act.

DEBT RESTRUCTURING

Amendment No. 23: Deletes Senate lan-guage earmarking funds for ‘‘Debt restrict-ing’’ from ‘‘Economic Assistance’’, and re-stores House language providing for a directappropriation of such funds.

Amendment No. 24: Appropriates $10,000,000for ‘‘Debt Restructuring’’ instead of $7,000,000as proposed by the House or earmarking suchfunds from ‘‘Economic Assistance’’ as pro-posed by the Senate. The conference agree-ment also restores House language allowingfor debt restructuring of loans owed to theUnited States as a result of concessionalloans made to eligible Latin American andCaribbean countries. The managers endorsethe House report language regarding theneed to reduce the debt burden on countriesparticipating in debt restructuring, and ex-pect individual reports on the expected newdebt that would be assumed by any countryproposed for such restructuring includingthe rationale justifying such additional debt.

MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENTPROGRAM ACCOUNT

Amendment No. 25: Appropriates $1,500,000for subsidy costs of micro and small enter-prise development loans and $500,000 for ad-ministrative expenses as proposed by theHouse instead of earmarking such funds from‘‘Economic Assistance’’ as proposed by theSenate.

Although the conferees have not des-ignated a specific funding level formicroenterprise lending programs, the con-ferees note a strong bipartisan commitmentto these activities. The conferees support theprogram’s emphasis on micro-loans for self-employment as a means to lift the poorestpeople from poverty. The conferees believethat these programs promote sustainable,market-based development at relatively lit-tle cost and deserve support substantiallyconsistent with last year’s level. The con-ferees urge AID, consistent with itsMicroenterprise Initiative, to allocate up toone-half of its microenterprise funds to pov-erty lending programs that provide loans ofless than $300.

Amendment No. 26: Inserts Senate lan-guage allowing up to 70 percent of the prin-cipal amount of a micro loan to be guaran-teed notwithstanding section 108 of the For-eign Assistance Act.

Amendment No. 27: Inserts Senate lan-guage making funds available for obligationuntil September 30, 1997.

HOUSING GUARANTY PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Amendment No. 28: Appropriates $4,000,000for the subsidy cost of guaranteed loans. TheHouse had proposed no funding for this pur-pose, and the Senate had proposed $8,000,000,to be derived from funds appropriated in‘‘Economic Assistance’’. The conferenceagreement also includes $7,000,000 as pro-posed by the House for the administrativecosts of the housing guaranty program, in-stead of earmarking such funds from ‘‘Eco-nomic Assistance’’ as proposed by the Sen-ate.

INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ANDASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN

Amendment No. 29: Deletes Senate lan-guage providing an appropriation of$175,000,000 for ‘‘International Disaster As-sistance’’ and requiring that $40,000,000 ofsuch funds should be made available for

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10985October 26, 1995emergency humanitarian assistance to theformer Yugoslavia. These matters are ad-dressed in amendment no. 22.

Also, deletes Senate language clarifyingrestrictions on assistance to Pakistan. Thismatter is addressed in amendment no. 145.

OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FORINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Amendment No. 30: Appropriates$465,750,000 for operating expenses of theAgency for International Development asproposed by the House instead of $490,000,000as proposed by the Senate. The conferees ex-pect the Committees on Appropriations to beinformed any time prior to the exercise ofthe authority to use up to $25,000,000, as pro-vided for under amendment no. 11, for pur-poses of section 667 of the Foreign AssistanceAct.

Amendment No. 31: Inserts language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate that would limit to $1,475,000 the amountof funds available for printing costs, andlimit to $25,000 the cost of any individual re-port without the approval of the Adminis-trator.

The conference agreement also includesnew language, similar to Senate languagefrom amendment no. 1, that would prohibitthe use of any funds in this Act to relocatethe Agency for International Development tothe Federal Triangle. The managers expectAID to assess the need for such a move, andto report to the Committees on Appropria-tions on future plans for a move, if war-ranted, at a lower cost and with lower rentalpayments. The prohibitive cost of the pro-posed relocation to the Federal Trianglebuilding, including exorbitant rental costs,was the primary reason for the decision toprohibit the use of funds for the move.

OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY FORINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Amendment No. 32: Appropriates $30,200,000for the operating expenses of the InspectorGeneral as proposed by the Senate instead of$35,200,000 as proposed by the House andmakes such funds available for two fiscalyears. The managers anticipate that the In-spector General will use deobligated prioryear funds in order to maintain an adequateprogram level.

ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

Amendment No.33: Deletes Senate lan-guage inserting ‘‘Middle East Fund’’, and re-stores House language designating the ac-count ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’.

Amendment No. 34: Appropriates$2,340,000,000 for ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’instead of $2,300,000,000 as proposed by theHouse and $2,015,000,000 as proposed by theSenate.

Amendment No. 35: Inserts language ear-marking $1,200,000,000 for Israel on a grantbasis and $815,000,000 for Egypt on a grantbasis of which not less than $200,000,000 shallbe provided by Commodity Import Programassistance, provides that the President as-sure such assistance does not cause an ad-verse impact on the total level of non-mili-tary exports from the United States to Israeland Egypt, links aid to Egypt and Israel ingreat measure to their continued participa-tion in the Camp David Accords, and author-izes the use of local currency for increasingthe endowment of the American Universityin Cairo and for projects and programs whichpromote the preservation and restoration ofEgyptian antiquities. This assistance, whichutilizes only local currency generated by ourforeign assistance program, is a ‘‘no-cost’’way of fostering U.S. values in a region ofthe world that is vital to our national inter-ests. This will be the third time Congress hasapproved a replenishment for the A.U.C. en-dowment, and the second time Congress has

approved assistance for the preservation ofEgyptian antiquities. The managers expectthe administration to utilize this authorityby providing at least the amounts detailed inthe legislation. The House bill contained noprovision on this matter.

Amendment No. 36: Restores House lan-guage which prohibits assistance to Zaire.

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND

Amendment No. 37: Appropriates up to$19,600,000 for the International Fund for Ire-land as proposed by the House. The Senatebill did not contain a provision on this mat-ter.

The conferees strongly urge the Inter-national Fund for Ireland to take every steppossible to ensure that all recipients of Fundsupport are promoting equality of oppor-tunity and non-discrimination in employ-ment.

The conferees note the formation of a dis-tance learning consortium that includes sixuniversities from the United States, North-ern Ireland, and the Irish Republic, and sug-gest that an allocation be provided for sup-port of this service to business and invest-ment in Ireland.

ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THEBALTIC STATES

Amendment No. 38: Inserts a subsectiondesignation as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 39: Appropriates$324,000,000 for ‘‘Assistance for Eastern Eu-rope and the Baltic States’’ as propose bythe House instead of $335,000,000 as proposedby the Senate.



ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENTSTATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

Amendment No. 42: Appropriates$641,000,000 for assistance for the New Inde-pendent States of the former Soviet Union(NIS) instead of $580,000,000 as proposed bythe House and $705,000,000 as proposed by theSenate.

The conferees expect that not more than$195,000,000 of the total amount made avail-able under this heading should be provided toRussia in 1996 in consideration of the factthat Russia has been allocated more than 60percent of the funds obligated under thisheading since fiscal year 1993. This matter isaddressed in amendment no. 47.

Amendment No. 43: Inserts House languageregarding a presidential national securitywaiver that was deleted by the Senate, andmodifies a reference to the Helsinki FinalAct.

Amendment No. 44: Deletes Senate lan-guage permitting funds to be used for defenseconversion.

Amendment No. 45: Inserts language re-quiring that projects in the NIS should em-ploy in key positions individuals with priorexperience in the region and relevant lan-guage skills, instead of requiring that orga-nizations previously functioning in the re-gion be given priority in grants and con-tracts as proposed by the House.

Amendment No. 46: Inserts language di-recting that the Agency for InternationalDevelopment encourage and give significantweight to cost-sharing in its awards ofgrants and contracts to assist privatizationactivities within the New Independent Statesof the former Soviet Union. The House lan-guage mandated cost-sharing on a 1 to 1basis. The conference agreement is not in-tended to disadvantage private and vol-untary organization, but to encourage, tothe extent feasible, use of their own re-sources when implementing private sectorprograms.

OMNIBUS II PRIVATIZATION PROJECTCONTRACT

The managers support the open competi-tion for contracts under the Omnibus II Pri-vatization Project that resulted in an appre-ciable number of base contract awards tonew and/or small businesses. However, theynote that the actual number of task ordersawarded to small and new contractors in dis-appointingly small. The managers directUSAID to take immediate measures to en-sure that all awardees receive a fair propor-tion of task order awards and a chance toperform. A level playing field must be imple-mented for the competition process as manysmall and new businesses find it impossibleto successfully compete for task ordersagainst large and established USAID con-tractors. The use of dollar goals and com-petitions limited to new and/or small firmsshould be utilized, if necessary, to expand ac-cess beyond the Washington D.C. region. TheAssistant Administrator for Europe and theNew Independent States, in consultationwith the Coordinator for Assistance to theNIS, should report to the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations on progresstoward opening the task order process tosmall businesses and firms not currentlyunder USAID contract, no later than Feb-ruary 15, 1996.

Amendment No. 47: Inserts language pro-viding various directives regarding the allo-cation and use of funds appropriated for as-sistance to Ukraine, Russia, Armenia andother independent states of the former So-viet Union. The House bill contained no pro-visions on this matter other than those ad-dressed in amendments no. 151, 152, and 160.

Inserts language proposed by the Senatewith regard to retention of interest by enter-prise funds and language allowing any enter-prise fund established with respect to morethan one country to establish advisory coun-cils in lieu of the appointment of host coun-try nationals to its board of director.

The language also includes Senate provi-sions that not less than $225,000,000 shall bemade available for Ukraine, not less than$85,000,000 shall be made available for Arme-nia, and that not less than $15,000,000 shall bemade available for a Trans-Caucasus Enter-prise Fund.

Obligation of funds for Russia is made con-tingent on a determination by the Presidentthat the Government of Russia has termi-nated implementation of arrangements toprovide Iran with certain goods and servicesrelated to nuclear programs in Iran. Themanagers also included a provision allowingthe President to waive the provisions of thesubsection on national security grounds. TheHouse had no similar provision.

The managers strongly support a programof assistance to the New Independent Statesthat reflects a shift in emphasis towardUkraine, Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, theKyrgyz Republic, and other states that theUnited States is encouraging to move towardfree markets and democracy.

Recent progress by Armenia in carryingout economic reforms is noted by the man-agers. Because of concern about the impactof the continuing economic blockade andconflict in the region, the conferees haveprovided $85,000,000 for technical and human-itarian assistance requested by the Govern-ment of Armenia, including food, fuel, andmedical supplies and services. The managersexpect the projects and activities under-taken under this subsection to be in additionto the projects and activities included in the1996 congressional justification documents.

The managers support funding for the Rus-sian, Eurasian, and East European Researchand Training Program (Title VIII) from boththe NIS and Eastern Europe and Baltic as-sistance accounts. The program is intended

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10986 October 26, 1995to assure that broad-based regional expertiseis available to both policy managers and theacademic community. To the maximum ex-tent possible, funding for this program isrecommended at the fiscal year 1995 level.The conference agreement also assumes con-tinuation of other graduate fellowship, part-nership, and training projects in the region,such as the Central and Eastern EuropeanGraduate fellowship program. Regional stu-dent exchange programs, in general, shouldbe distributed equitably among high school,college, and graduate categories.

NIS NON-PROLIFERATION

The managers agree that the Soviet-De-signed Reactor Safety Program and imple-mentation of the Russian agreement to ceaseproduction of weapons-grade plutonium areessential elements of our foreign and non-proliferation policies. In administering theNIS assistance programs, the Coordinatorand AID are urged to expeditiously transferfunds to other federal agencies that are en-gaged in implementing these non-prolifera-tion programs.

UKRAINE

The managers have provided $225,000,000 forUkraine, conditioned on additional progresswith respect to economic reform. Of thisamount, $50,000,000 has been provided to re-duce uncertainties in Ukraine’s energy sup-ply that have severely impeded its economicrecovery and renewed development. The con-ference agreement assumes that $30,000,000 isto be expended for technical assistance inthe energy sector, including assistance to de-velop regulatory institutions for managingthe purchase, licensing, and use of nuclearfuel. The managers urge that none of thesefunds be used to purchase or pay for oil, nat-ural gas, or nuclear fuel.

Historically, Ukraine has been dependentupon Russia for the technical managementof nuclear facilities. As a result, during theChernobyl crisis, local technicians were notsufficiently skilled, nor prepared to take anyaction independent of guidance from Mos-cow. Ongoing concern about the adequacy ofsafety measures and equipment in Ukraine’snuclear plants has motivated the confereesto recommend that $20,000,000 be made avail-able to meet a request from the Governmentof Ukraine for the purchase, installation,and training to operate new display and con-trol systems that have the capability tomonitor and shut down a facility before acrisis occurs.

The managers have also provided$22,000,000 to strengthen small and mediumbusinesses. Learning from the experience ofRussia, the conferees conclude that mass pri-vatization efforts alone do not generate suf-ficient jobs and income during a period ofradical economic and social transition. Themanagers also support continued assistanceto strengthen independent print and broad-cast media that appear capable of becomingfinancially self-sufficient. The availability ofaccurate, timely information during the cur-rent period of transition is key to maintain-ing support of necessary economic and polit-ical reforms.

The conferees continue to view with con-cern the decision of the Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreements(CITA) to impose restrictive quotas on tex-tile imports from Ukraine. Testimony ear-lier this year before the House Committee bythe Coordinator of United States Assistancein the New Independent States suggestedthat every effort should be undertaken to en-courage a market economy in Ukraine.

CRIME IN EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA

The managers have provided not less than$12,600,000 for activities in support of train-ing and investigations related to inter-national crime in Central and Eastern Eu-

rope, Ukraine and Russia. This is a minimumamount, and the coordinators of aid to East-ern Europe and the NIS should make this atop priority in allocating funds if additionalamounts are required.

Corruption and violent crimes have in-creased markedly over the past year in muchof the region, with estimates of many thou-sands of criminal organizations that are rap-idly expanding narcotics smuggling, bankingand insurance fraud, extortion and kidnap-ping activities into Western Europe and theUnited States. The conferees are particularlyconcerned about an escalation in the numberof reported incidents of smuggling of fissileand nuclear-related materials that could beused by international terrorists.

The managers also inserted a provision al-lowing the President, under certain limitedconditions, to provide only humanitarian as-sistance for the Government of Azerbaijanfor the exclusive use of refugees and dis-placed persons within Azerbaijan.

INDEPENDENT AGENCYAmendment No. 48: Inserts language pro-

viding for the heading ‘‘Independent Agen-cy’’ instead of ‘‘Independent Agencies’’ asproposed by the House. The Senate amend-ment deleted the heading.

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Amendment No. 49: Deletes House lan-guage providing an appropriation of$11,500,000 for the African DevelopmentFoundation. This matter is further addressedin amendments no. 10 and 11.

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION

Amendment No. 50: Deletes House lan-guage providing an appropriation of$20,000,000 for the Inter-American Founda-tion. This matter is further addressed inamendments no. 10 and 11.

PEACE CORPS

Amendment No. 51: Appropriates$205,000,000 for the Peace Corps instead of$210,000,000 as proposed by the House and$200,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Themanagers expect that the Peace Corps andthe Trade and Development Agency will re-ceive by transfer from funds appropriated forassistance for the NIS the cost of fiscal year1996 activities and operations in the NIS.

Amendment No. 52: Inserts Senate lan-guage making funds for the Peace corpsavailable until September 30, 1997.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

Amendment No. 53: Appropriates$115,000,000 for ‘‘International Narcotics Con-trol’’ instead of $113,000,000 as proposed bythe House and $150,000,000 as proposed by theSenate. Authority to transfer additionalfunds to this account is provided in amend-ment no. 175.

Amendment No. 54: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate earmarking $1,800,000 fora Federal Bureau of Investigation LegalAttache office in Cairo, Egypt, and $5,000,000for the Federal Bureau of Investigation andSecret Service to establish and maintain of-fices in the Triborder area of Argentina,Brazil, and Paraguay.

MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 55: Inserts language allow-ing the use of funds appropriated under thisheading to be used for salaries and expensesof personnel and dependents as authorized bythe Foreign Service Act of 1980, and for al-lowances as authorized by sections 5921through 5925 of title 5, United States Code.Deletes language proposed by the Senatethat would have allowed funds to be used forsalaries and expenses of personnel assignedto the Bureau charged with carrying out theMigration and Refugee Assistance Act.

The managers agree that funds for salariesand expenses should be made available for

the same purposes as they were made avail-able under this heading in fiscal year 1995,and should not be made available for otherpurposes.

Since 1991 the United States has providedhumanitarian assistance for Tibetan refu-gees living in exile, and the conferees expectthat such support be continued.

Amendment No. 56: Inserts Senate lan-guage making available not more than$12,000,000 for administrative expenses.

Amendment No. 57: Deletes House lan-guage limiting funds for salaries and ex-penses of personnel assigned to the Bureaucharged with carrying out the Migration andRefugee Assistance Act.

Amendment No. 58: Inserts Senate lan-guage earmarking not less than $80,000,000for refugees from the former Soviet Unionand Eastern Europe and other refugees reset-tling in Israel. The House bill contained noprovision on this matter.

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 59: Appropriates $5,000,000for ‘‘Refugee Resettlement Assistance’’ asproposed by the House. The Senate bill didnot contain a provision on this matter.

ANTI-TERRORISM ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 60: Appropriates $16,000,000for ‘‘Anti-Terrorism Assistance’’ instead of$17,000,000 as proposed by the House and$15,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

TITLE III—MILITARY ASSISTANCEFUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESI-DENT

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION ANDTRAINING

Amendment No. 61: Appropriates $39,000,000as proposed by the House instead of$19,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. TheSenate supported full funding for IMET infiscal year 1996 but proposed $19,000,000 fromthis Act and $20,000,000 from the Departmentof Defense.

Amendment No. 62: Inserts Senate lan-guage adding Guatemala as a nation prohib-ited from receiving IMET funding. This mat-ter is also addressed in amendments no. 63and 176.

Amendment No. 63: Deletes language pro-posed by the House permitting expandedIMET training only for Guatemala and re-tains House language permitting expandedIMET training only for Indonesia. The man-agers have agreed to permit ‘‘expanded’’IMET assistance for Indonesia because theybelieve that expanded IMET could addresssome of the human rights concerns associ-ated with the Indonesian military. The con-ferees expect the IMET courses to focus onhuman rights, military justice, and civilianmanagement and control of the armedforces, and the courses should include mem-bers of the Indonesian legislature and rep-resentatives from nongovernmental organi-zations.

FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM

Amendment No. 64: Appropriates$3,208,390,000 instead of $3,211,279,000 as pro-posed by the House and $3,207,500,000 as pro-posed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 65: Inserts Senate lan-guage earmarking not less than $1,800,000,000for grants only for Israel and not less than$1,300,000,000 for grants only for Egypt. Re-tains language in both House and Senatebills directing that funds appropriated for Is-rael shall be disbursed within thirty days ofenactment of this Act or by October 31, 1995,whichever is later. Inserts language proposedin both House and Senate bills making fundsavailable for advanced weapons systems ofwhich not less than $475,000,000 shall be

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10987October 26, 1995available for procurement in Israel of de-fense articles and services, including re-search and development, and deletes Senatelanguage making funds available for ad-vanced fighter aircraft programs and up to$150,000,000 for research and development inthe United States.

Amendment No. 66: Inserts Senate lan-guage providing that funds made availableunder this paragraph shall be nonrepayablenotwithstanding any requirement in section23 of the Arms Export Control Act, and thatup to $20,000,000 may be transferred fromfunds made available for the NIS and SEEDfor the purpose of supporting the WarsawInitiative Program.

CENTRAL EUROPE

The conferees note that Poland, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, and the Slovak Republicare all considering the replacement of manyof their Air Forces’ high performance air-craft. The managers urge the Administrationto take steps to ensure that U.S.-producedaircraft can compete effectively for thesesales. For this reason, the conferees urge theadministration to support any possible saleof high performance U.S. fighter aircraft tothese nations.

Amendment No. 67: Inserts Senate lan-guage, ‘‘the following:’’ in order to conformthe common dollar amounts provided by theHouse and Senate for Greece and Turkey tolanguage changes made by amendments No.68 and 70.

Amendment No. 68: Insert the word ‘‘only’’as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 69: Strikes House lan-guage to conform with amendments no. 68and 70 as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 70: Inserts the word‘‘only’’ as proposed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 71: Deletes Senate lan-guage related to access by international or-ganizations.

ALIZA MARCUS

The managers are concerned that AlizaMarcus, a Reuters journalist and U.S. citi-zen, is being tried in Turkey on charges of‘‘provoking racial hatred’’ for reporting onthe Turkish military’s forced evaluation anddestruction of villages in southeastern Tur-key. The conferees recognize Turkey’s legiti-mate right to combat terrorism, and expectthat the government of Turkey will protectfreedom of expression and information byinterceding with the military-sponsoredState Security Courts on behalf of AlizaMarcus.

Amendment No. 72: Inserts a limitation of$23,250,000 for expenses for administeringmilitary assistance instead of $24,000,000 asprovided by the House and $22,500,000 as pro-posed by the Senate.

PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

Amendment No. 73: Appropriates $70,000,000for ‘‘Peacekeeping Operations’’, instead of$68,300,000 as proposed by the House and$72,033,000 as proposed by the Senate, and in-serts language proposed by the Senate sub-jecting the obligation and expenditure ofsuch funds to the regular notification proce-dures of the Committee on Appropriations.TITLE IV—MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC

ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATEDTO THE PRESIDENT

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS CON-TRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FORRECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Amendment No. 74: Appropriates $28,189,963for the paid-in capital stock of the WorldBank as proposed by the Senate instead of$23,009,000 as proposed by the House.

Amendment No. 75: Inserts Senate lan-guage conditioning obligation of funds topurchase paid-in capital stock of the WorldBank upon certification from the Secretary

of the Treasury that the Bank has not ap-proved any loans to Iran since October 1,1994.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

Amendment No. 76: Appropriates $35,000,000for the Global Environmental Facility of theWorld Bank instead of $30,000,000 as proposedby the House and $50,000,000 as proposed bythe Senate.

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTIONAND DEVELOPMENT

LIMITATION ON CALLABLE CAPITALSUBSCRIPTIONS

Amendment No. 77: Permits subscriptionfor callable capital portion of the UnitedStates share of increases in the capital stockof the International Bank for Reconstructionand Development totaling $911,475,013 as pro-posed by the Senate instead of $743,900,000 asproposed by the House.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

Amendment No. 78: Appropriates$700,000,000 for the International Develop-ment Association instead of $575,000,000 asproposed by the House and $775,000,000 as pro-posed by the Senate.CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE

CORPORATION

Amendment No. 79: Appropriates $60,900,000for the International Finance Corporationinstead of $67,550,000 as proposed by theHouse and the Senate.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTER-AMERICANDEVELOPMENT BANK

Amendment No. 80: Appropriates $25,952,110for the paid-in capital of the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank as proposed by the Sen-ate instead of $25,950,000 as proposed by theHouse, and $10,000,000 for the Fund for Spe-cial Operations instead of $20,000,000 as pro-posed by the Senate. The House did not rec-ommend funding for the Fund for Special Op-erations.INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITA-

TION ON CALLABLE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS

Amendment No. 81: Permits subscriptionfor callable capital portion of the UnitedStates share of increases in the capital stockof the Inter-American Development Bank to-taling $1,523,767,142 as proposed by the Sen-ate instead of $1,523,000,000 as proposed bythe House.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENTERPRISE FOR THEAMERICAS MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND

Amendment No. 82: Appropriates $53,750,000for the United States contribution to theMultilateral Investment Fund instead of$70,000,000 as proposed by the House and Sen-ate.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENTBANK

Amendment No. 83: Appropriates $13,221,596for the paid-in capital of the Asian Develop-ment Bank as proposed by the Senate in-stead of $13,200,000 as proposed by the House.


Amendment No. 84: Permits subscriptionfor callable capital portion of the UnitedStates share of increases in the capital stockof the Asian Development Bank totaling$647,858,204 as proposed by the Senate insteadof $647,000,000 as proposed by the House.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENTFUND

Amendment No. 85: Appropriates$100,000,000 for the Asian Development Fundas proposed by the House instead of$110,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE EUROPEAN BANK FORRECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

Amendment No. 86: Appropriates $70,000,000for the paid-in capital of the European Bank

for Reconstruction and Development as pro-posed by the Senate instead of $69,180,000 asproposed by the House.


Amendment No. 87: Permits subscriptionsfor the callable capital portion of the UnitedStates share of increases in the capital stockof the European Bank for Reconstructionand Development totaling $163,333,333 as pro-posed by the Senate instead of $161,400,000 asproposed by the House.

NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Amendment No. 88: Appropriates $56,250,000for paid-in capital of the North American De-velopment Bank as proposed by the Houseinstead of $25,000,000 as proposed by the Sen-ate. The language also permits subscriptionfor the callable capital portion of the UnitedStates share of increases in the capital stockof the North American Development Banktotaling $318,750,000 as proposed by the Houseand the Senate. The appropriation for theMultilateral Investment Fund contained inthe Senate amendment is addressed inamendment no. 82.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ANDPROGRAMS

Amendment No. 89: Appropriates$285,000,000 for ‘‘International Organizationsand Programs’’ instead of $155,000,000 as pro-posed by the House and $260,000,000 as pro-posed by the Senate. Within these funds, themanagers expect that $100,000,000 will bemade available for a grant to UNICEF.

The conferees recognize the vital roleUNDP plays as the coordinating agency forUnited Nations activities in support of sus-tainable development worldwide.

Amendment No. 90: Deletes an earmark of$3,000,000 for the World Food Program thatwas proposed by the Senate. The confereesurge the Secretary of State to provide$3,000,000 for the World Food Program in fis-cal year 1996, the same amount prior con-ferees have urged in the past two statementsof managers. The conferees recognize thatthe World Food Program plays an essentialrole in providing food and other aid to theneediest people in the world, especially inconflict zones such as Bosnia and parts ofsub-Saharan Africa.

Amendment No. 91: Deletes Senate lan-guage on the proportionality of reductions asapplied to funding for the United Nations De-velopment Program, the United NationsChildren’s Fund, the United Nations Envi-ronment Program, and the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency.

Amendment No. 92: Inserts a limitation of$30,000,000 on funds for the United NationsPopulation Fund, instead of $25,000,000 asproposed by the House and $35,000,000 as pro-posed by the Senate.

Amendment No. 93: Deletes Senate lan-guage earmarking not less than $1,000,000 forthe United Nations Development Fund forWomen (UNIFEM). The House bill containedno provision on this matter.

Amendment No. 94: Inserts language pro-viding that funds may be made available tothe Korean Peninsula Energy DevelopmentOrganization (KEDO) for administrative ex-penses and heavy fuel oil costs associatedwith the Agreed Framework. No funds areavailable for KEDO funding for administra-tive expenses and heavy fuel oil costs beyondthe total amount included for KEDO in thefiscal year 1996 congressional presentation.The conference agreement further providesthat these funds may only be made availableif the President determines and certifies in

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10988 October 26, 1995writing to the Congress that certain specificactions have been undertaken in support ofthe Agreed Framework with North Korea.The managers agree that none of the fundsin this bill that are made available for KEDOin fiscal year 1996 may be used to contributeto the lightwater nuclear reactors being pro-vided to North Korea under the terms of theAgreed Framework. This matter is also ad-dressed in amendment no. 164.

Amendment No. 95: Deletes Senate lan-guage earmarking $1,500,000 for the UnitedNations Fund for Victims of Torture. TheHouse bill contained no provision on thismatter.

The conferees urge the Secretary of Stateto provide a total of $2,250,000 for the UnitedNations Fund for Victims of Torture and theUnited Nations Development Fund forWomen in fiscal 1996.

GENERAL PROVISIONSLIMITATION ON EXPENSES

Amendment No. 96: Restores House lan-guage providing a limitation of $5,000 on en-tertainment expenses for the Agency forInternational Development.

LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONALALLOWANCES

Amendment No. 97: Restores House lan-guage providing a limitation of $2,000 on en-tertainment expenses associated with ‘‘For-eign Military Financing Program’’.

Amendment No. 98: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate limiting funds for enter-tainment expenses of the Inter-AmericanFoundation.

Amendment No. 99: Restores House lan-guage providing a limitation of $2,000 on en-tertainment and representation expenses ofthe Inter-American Foundation.

Amendment No. 100: Restores House lan-guage providing a limitation of $4,000 on en-tertainment expenses of the Peace Corps.

Amendment No. 101: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate limiting funds for enter-tainment expenses of the Trade and Develop-ment Agency.

Amendment No. 102: Restores House lan-guage providing a limitation of $2,000 on rep-resentation and entertainment expenses ofthe Trade and Development Agency.

DEOBLIGATION/REOBLIGATION AUTHORITY

Amendment No. 103: Inserts Senate lan-guage providing for a new subsection des-ignation.

Amendment No. 104: Inserts Senate lan-guage which provides that fiscal year 1994FMF obligated balances, if deobligated, willremain available during fiscal year 1995 forthe same purposes, and further that this au-thority may not be used in fiscal year 1996.

COMMERCE AND TRADE

Amendment No. 105: Inserts Senate lan-guage regarding notifications on actions au-thorized by this section.

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendment No. 106: Inserts language sub-jecting ‘‘Development Assistance’’ to the no-tification requirements of this section. TheHouse had proposed that such requirementsbe applied to ‘‘Child Survival and DiseasePrograms Fund’’, ‘‘Development AssistanceFund’’, and ‘‘Development Fund for Africa’’.The Senate had deleted these accounts fromthe notification requirements and had in-serted a new account, ‘‘Economic Assist-ance’’. The notification requirements nowconform to the account structure containedin the conference agreement.

Amendment No. 107: Restores House lan-guage which includes ‘‘Economic SupportFund’’ in the notification requirements ofsection 515.

Amendment No. 108: Restores House lan-guage which subjected ‘‘Inter-AmericanFoundation’’ and ‘‘African Development

Foundation’’ to the notification require-ments of section 515.

Amendment No. 109: Deletes Senate lan-guage which added ‘‘Middle East Fund’’ tothe notification requirements of section 515.

Amendment No. 110: Deletes House lan-guage which subjected ‘‘United States Emer-gency Refugee and Migration AssistanceFund’’ to the notification requirements ofsection 515.

Amendment No. 111: Inserts Senate lan-guage reducing to 10 percent the thresholdtriggering a notification for changes in theamount of funds to be obligated from thelevel justified to the Congress for any pro-gram, project, or activity. This modificationconforms with the threshold currently con-tained in the Foreign Assistance Act.

ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND ASSISTANCE FORISRAEL

Amendment No. 112: Inserts the House lan-guage ‘‘Support Fund’’ which was deleted bythe Senate.

Amendment No. 113: Deletes the Senatelanguage ‘‘economic assistance’’ andreinserts the House language ‘‘the EconomicSupport Fund’’ which was deleted by theSenate.

PROHIBITION CONCERNING ABORTIONS ANDINVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION

Amendment No. 114: Inserts Senate lan-guage striking ‘‘Concerning Abortions’’ fromthe heading of the section and inserting ‘‘OnFunding for Abortions’’.

Amendment No. 115: Reported in disagree-ment.

SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendment No. 116: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate making Indonesia subject to the specialnotification requirements of section 520.

Amendment No. 117: Restores languageproposed by the House and stricken by theSenate that would subject assistance to Rus-sia to the special notification requirementsof section 520.

Amendment No. 118: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate that exempts Indonesia from the specialnotification requirements of section 520 forthe purpose of obligating or expending fundsfor development assistance activities. Thisexemption is no longer necessary, since Indo-nesia is no longer subject to the special noti-fication requirements of section 520.

CHILD SURVIVAL AND AIDS ACTIVITIES

Amendment No. 119: Deletes Senate lan-guage inserting the words ‘‘Family Plan-ning’’ in the heading of this section.

PROHIBITION AGAINST DIRECT FUNDING TOCERTAIN COUNTRIES

Amendment No. 120: Deletes Senate lan-guage requiring the President to certify thatwithholding indirect funding for certaincountries would be contrary to the nationalsecurity interest of the United States priorto the obligation of funds. The conferenceagreement would require the certification tobe made based on the national interest of theUnited States.

AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT

Amendment No. 121: Inserts Senate lan-guage waiving the provisions of section 10 ofPublic Law 91–672 and section 15 of the StateDepartment Basic Authorities Act of 1956 forfunds appropriated by this Act. The Housebill would have subjected the funds to theprovisions of these sections.

SUPPORT FOR AUTHORIZATION PROCESS

The managers regret that they must rec-ommend waiving the statutory authorizationrequirement for most programs in this bill inorder to avoid passing what would be in ef-fect a partial year appropriation.

The Committees on International Rela-tions and Foreign Relations have gone to

great lengths this year to end the decade-long stalemate over foreign aid authoriza-tions. The majority of the managers havesupported that effort and will continue to doso. Only through the enactment of an au-thorization bill for foreign aid will the Com-mittees on Appropriations be able to benefitfrom formal legislative guidance as they ap-portion the spending allocations for pro-grams under their jurisdiction.

Under the current situation, in which theHouse has passed an authorization for for-eign assistance and the Senate is attemptingto complete action on its counterpart meas-ure under an agreement to limit time for fur-ther consideration, the managers have beenasked by members of authorization commit-tees to include in the conference report sub-stantial legislation such as the Middle EastPeace Facilitation Act and the NATO Par-ticipation Act, as well as extension of the aupair program. In addition, the managershave gone to some effort to conform spend-ing levels to authorization levels passed bythe House or reported in the Senate, takinginto consideration that the two authoriza-tion bills contain differing ceilings in manyaccounts.

PROHIBITION ON BILATERAL ASSISTANCE TOTERRORIST COUNTRIES

Amendment No. 122: Inserts Senate lan-guage prohibiting bilateral assistance to ter-rorist countries.

COMMERCIAL LEASING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES

Amendment No. 123: Deletes an excess‘‘and’’.

COMPETITIVE INSURANCE

Amendment No. 124: Inserts Senate lan-guage requiring the Agency for InternationalDevelopment to include a clause in all con-tracts, subcontracts, and solicitations, re-quiring that United States insurance compa-nies have a fair opportunity to bid for insur-ance when such insurance is necessary or ap-propriate.

STINGERS IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION

Amendment No. 125: Restores House lan-guage prohibiting the sale of Stingers to Per-sian Gulf nations.

LOCATION OF STOCKPILES

Amendment No. 126: Deletes House lan-guage and inserts Senate provisions whichamend the Arms Export Control Act with re-spect to the competitive pricing of defensearticles, make Israel eligible for futurestockpile additions without further statu-tory authorization, authorize additionalfunds for South Korea and Thailand for eachof fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and permit thePresident to designate additional countriesfor establishment of stockpiles without re-quiring further statutory authorization.

COMPLIANCE WITH UNITED STATES SANCTIONSAGAINST IRAQ

Amendment No. 127: Restores House lan-guage providing a subsection heading.

Amendment No. 128: Restores House lan-guage which allows the President to imposeimport sanctions against nations which havenot prohibited the importation of productsfrom and the export of products to Iraq, Ser-bia, or Montenegro.

POW/MIA MILITARY DRAWDOWN

Amendment No. 129: Deletes Senate lan-guage authorizing the appropriation of suchsums as may be necessary to provide reim-bursement for defense articles and servicesprovided under this section.

PRIORITY DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT

Amendment No. 130: Deletes Senate lan-guage requiring priority delivery of excessdefense articles to NATO allies and major

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10989October 26, 1995non-NATO allies on the southern and south-eastern flank of NATO.

AUTHORITY TO ASSIST BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

Amendment No. 131: Inserts Senate lan-guage authorizing the President to transferto the government of Bosnia-Hercegovina,without reimbursement and subject to priornotification of the Committees on Appro-priations, defense articles from the stocks ofthe Defense Department and defense servicesof the Department of Defense of an aggregatevalue not to exceed $100,000,000. The Housebill contained a limitation of $50,000,000 onthe value of such articles and services.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE TERMINATION OFSANCTIONS AGAINST SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

Amendment No. 132: Inserts language al-lowing the President to waive the provisionsof section 540A only for the purposes of meet-ing emergency humanitarian assistance or toachieve a negotiated settlement of the con-flict in Bosnia-Herzegovina that is accept-able to the parties.

In addition, the conference agreement in-cludes language proposed by the Senate ex-panding the authority of section 660(b) of theForeign Assistance Act to allow police train-ing with respect to sanctions monitoring andenforcement, and to reconstitute civilian po-lice authority under certain circumstances.The conferees recognize that there may beinstances when there is no practical alter-native to utilizing U.S. military personnel toconduct short-term training of civilian po-lice. The conferees intend that any such useof U.S. military personnel for police trainingshould be on a limited, short-term basis.

SPECIAL AUTHORITIES

Amendment No. 133: Deletes Haiti from thelist of countries and programs for whichfunds are made available notwithstandingany other provision of law, as proposed bythe Senate.

Amendment No. 134: Restores House lan-guage, stricken by the Senate, that wouldhave deleted displaced Burmese from the listof countries and programs for which fundsare made available notwithstanding anyother provision of law.

Amendment No. 135: Inserts languagewhich requires the President to terminateassistance to the military of any country ororganization that he determines is cooperat-ing, tactically or strategically, with theKhmer Rouge in their military operations,or to the military of which the President de-termines is not taking steps to prevent apattern or practice of commercial relationswith the Khmer Rouge. The conferees areconcerned by reports that Thai military per-sonnel are engaging in cooperative commer-cial relations with the Khmer Rouge in theexport of timber and gems. The conferees be-lieve that meaningful efforts should be madeby the government of Thailand and the Thaimilitary to halt this source of income for theKhmer Rouge.

ANTI-NARCOTICS ACTIVITIES

Amendment No. 136: Restores House lan-guage allowing funds appropriated in ‘‘Eco-nomic Support Fund’’ to be used for adminis-tration of justice programs in Latin Americaand the Caribbean. The Senate languagewould have stricken the reference to ‘‘Eco-nomic Support Fund’’ and replaced it with areference to ‘‘Economic Assistance’’. Thedisposition of this amendment conforms withthe conference agreement on the accountstructure for bilateral assistance.

ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 137: Deletes Senate lan-guage referring to titles I and II of the Agri-cultural Trade Development and AssistanceAct of 1954.

EARMARKS

Amendment No. 138: Inserts Senate lan-guage governing the application of earmarks

contained in the conference agreement. TheHouse bill did not contain this language,since it contained no earmarks.

CEILINGS

Amendment No. 139: Inserts Senate lan-guage changing the heading to include thewords ‘‘and Earmarks’’.

EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES

Amendment No. 140: Deletes House provi-sion which requires that excess defense arti-cles transferred to Jordan be subject to sec-tion 534 of this Act and inserts languagemaking Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania eligi-ble for receipt of lethal excess defense arti-cles.

Amendment No. 141: Deletes Senate lan-guage which allows the President to transferlethal excess defense articles to Estonia.This matter is addressed in amendment No.140.

PROHIBITION ON PUBLICITY OR PROPAGANDA

Amendment No. 142: Inserts language lim-iting use of funds for development educationto $750,000,000 instead of a funding prohibi-tion as proposed by the House and strickenby the Senate.

EXPORT FINANCING TRANSFER AUTHORITIES

Amendment No. 143: Deletes Senate Lan-guage changing the reference for export fi-nancing agencies from title I to title IV.Title I of the bill contains the funding for ex-port financing agencies.

LANDMINES

Amendment No. 144: Inserts Senate lan-guage which amends the National DefenseAuthorization Act for fiscal year 1993 to ex-tend by one year the existing moratorium ontransfers of antipersonnel landmines underthe authorities of the Foreign AssistanceAct and the Arms Export Control Act.

PAKISTAN

Amendment No. 145: Deletes House lan-guage requiring a GAO report, and insertslanguage which amends section 620E of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961 regardingPakistan as follows: allows the transfer ofmilitary equipment to Pakistan (other thanF–16 aircraft) contracted for prior to October1, 1990; provides that the restrictions in sec-tion 620E continue to apply to contracts forthe delivery of F–16 aircraft; provides thatthe prohibitions in section 620E do not applyto assistance provided for counternarcoticspurposes, military to military contact, IMETtraining, humanitarian and civic assistance,peacekeeping (except that lethal militaryequipment can only be leased or loaned), andantiterrorism activities; and provides fur-ther that the President may release Paki-stan of storage costs for item purchased butnot delivered and may reimburse Pakistanfor such amounts paid provided that suchpayments have no budgetary impact.

The conferees believe that in light of thisimportant administration policy initiative,the administration should provide to theCommittees on Appropriations, not laterthan April 1, 1996, a report on conventionalforce reduction and non-proliferation insouth Asia. This report should include an as-sessment of the strategic and conventionalbalance in the region, efforts taken by theUnited States to achieve regional agreementon nuclear non-proliferation and conven-tional force reductions, the role of UnitedStates aid in achieving these objectives, andprogress being made by nations in the regionin meeting U.S. non-proliferation objectives.This report should be unclassified to the ex-tent possible, with a classified addendum ifrequired.

The conferees also note that the State De-partment has determined that the Pressleramendment prohibition applies to govern-ment to government sales of military equip-

ment while the commercial sale of militaryequipment is subject to especially rigorouscase by case license review. The confereesbelieve that certain items which may pro-mote border security and stability, such asborder surveillance equipment, radar, andradar warning receivers should be reviewed,consistent with current law, in light of theircontribution as confidence building meas-ures contributing to security in border areasin the region.

RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING THE PALESTINIANAUTHORITY

Amendment No. 146: Inserts Senate lan-guage replacing the word ‘‘subsection’’ withthe word ‘‘restriction’’.

LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIESTHAT RESTRICT THE TRANSPORT OR DELIV-ERY OF UNITED STATES HUMANITARIAN AS-SISTANCE

Amendment No. 147: Restores House lan-guage stricken by the Senate which pro-hibits funds for any country if the govern-ment of such country prohibits or otherwiserestricts, directly or indirectly, the trans-port or delivery of United States humani-tarian assistance and further provides thePresident waiver authority if he determinesit to be in the national security interest.This matter is addressed in amendment No.174.

NON-OVERTIME DIFFERENTIAL PAY

Amendment No. 148: Deletes language pro-posed by the Senate that would allow a For-eign Service Officer who is a criminal inves-tigator for the AID Office of Inspector Gen-eral to receive non-overtime differential pay.

REFERENCES TO AUTHORIZATION ACTS

Amendment No. 149: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate identifying the authorization sources forthe ‘‘Child Survival and Disease ProgramsFund’’. The conference agreement does notcontain such an account.

PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTION

Amendment No. 150: Deletes language pro-posed by the House and stricken by the Sen-ate.

The managers on the part of the Houseagree to recede from their disagreement in atechnical sense only. The substance of theHouse amendment will be addressed by theHouse managers during further consider-ation by the House of amendment no. 115, anamendment in disagreement.

WITHHOLDING OF ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIESSUPPORTING NUCLEAR PLANT IN CUBA

Amendment No. 151: Inserts Senate lan-guage providing a subsection designation andheading for the first subsection.

Amendment No. 152: Inserts language pro-viding for several exceptions to the with-holding of funds to any country that sup-ports the completion of the nuclear facilityat Juragua, near Cienfuegos, Cuba. The ex-ceptions include assistance to meet urgenthumanitarian needs, including disaster as-sistance and refugee relief; democratic polit-ical reform and rule of law activities; thecreation of private sector and nongovern-mental organizations that are independent ofgovernment control; the development of afree market economic system; and assistancefor the purposes described in the CooperativeThreat Reduction Act of 1993 (Nunn-Lugar).The conference agreement deletes subsection(c) of the Senate amendment, regarding defi-nitions.

LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR HAITI

Amendment No. 153: Restores House lan-guage stricken by the Senate prohibiting as-sistance for Haiti when it is made known to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10990 October 26, 1995the President that the Government of Haitiis controlled by a regime holding powerthrough means other than the democraticelections scheduled for calendar year 1995and held in substantial compliance with therequirements of the 1987 Constitution ofHaiti.

PURCHASE OF AMERICAN MADE EQUIPMENTAND PRODUCTS

Amendment No. 154: Restores House lan-guage stricken by the Senate that expressesthe Sense of the Congress that all equipmentand products purchased with funds madeavailable by this Act should be American-made. The language also requires that, tothe greatest extent practicable, each entityreceiving financial assistance or fundingthrough this Act should be provided a noticedescribing the Sense of the Congress provi-sion.

LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

Amendment No. 155: Inserts a limitation of$33,500,000 for ESF for Turkey instead of theHouse limitation of $21,000,000.

LIMITATION OF FUNDS FOR THE NORTHAMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Amendment No. 156: Inserts language lim-iting the use of community adjustment andinvestment programs of the North AmericanDevelopment Bank to those set out in the bi-national agreement under which the Bankwas established. The Senate bill containedno provision on this matter.

The managers direct that funds appro-priated for the North American DevelopmentBank’s Community Adjustment and Invest-ment Program (CAIP) be limited to the pur-poses as defined in the binational agreementestablishing the Bank, specifically adjust-ment assistance and investment relate totrade. The conferees expect CAIP funds to berestricted to communities or businesses thatcan clearly demonstrate adverse foreigntrade-induced economic impact and that oth-erwise cannot secure financing from com-mercial lenders. It is further expected thatprojects in trade-impacted communitiesshould focus on job creation, job retention,and retooling.

The managers do not recommend fundingfor the Bank in order for it to serve as apass-through for existing federal programs.The managers oppose the use of CAIP fundsfor personnel or operating expenses of otherfederal entities participating in CAIPprojects. The Committees on Appropriationswill closely monitor compliance with thesedirectives when considering fiscal year 1997funding for the Bank.

To increase accountability, the managersrecommend that the North American Devel-opment Bank make the final determinationregarding both CAIP eligibility criteria andendorsement of projects for financing on acase-by-case basis.

LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR BURMA

Amendment No. 157: Restores House lan-guage stricken by the Senate prohibitingfunds in this Act from being used for inter-national narcotics control or crop substi-tution assistance for the government ofBurma. The Senate amendment would haveallowed such assistance if the Secretary ofState certified that it was fully consistentwith United States human rights concerns inBurma and serve a vital United States na-tional interest. The Senate amendment alsoextended to such assistance the reporting re-quirements of chapter 8 of part I of the For-eign Assistance Act.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ANDINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

Amendment No. 158: Inserts language toauthorize the Secretary of the Treasury tosubscribe to the fourth general capital in-

crease of the Asian Development Bank andauthorizes appropriations of $66,614,647 overthe multi-year period. Also, inserts a newsection 572 providing the authority for theSecretary of the Treasury to make a con-tribution of $700,000,000 to the InternationalDevelopment Association. The amount is thesame as the appropriation for IDA in amend-ment no. 78.

SPECIAL DEBT RELIEF FOR THE POOREST

Amendment No. 159: Inserts language pro-posed by the Senate authorizing the Presi-dent to reduce debt provided to certain coun-tries under the Foreign Assistance Act andthe Arms Export Control Act. In addition,the conference agreement inserts languageauthorizing the President to engage in debtbuybacks and sales, including debt-for-eq-uity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, ordebt-for-nature swaps. The inclusion of suchlanguage is consistent with the House lan-guage contained in the conference agreementon ‘‘Debt Restructuring’’ in amendment no.24.

LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR RUSSIA

Amendment No. 160: Strikes House lan-guage limiting the amount of fund under theheading ‘‘Assistance for the New Independ-ent States of the Former Soviet Union’’ thatmay be made available for Russia as pro-posed by the Senate. The managers expectthat not more than $195,000,000 of the totalamount made available in this bill for theformer Soviet Union should be provided toRussia in fiscal year 1996.

LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO MEXICO

Amendment No. 161: Deletes language con-tained in the House bill and stricken by theSenate limiting assistance to Mexico.

The managers expect the United Statesgovernment to continue to urge the govern-ment of Mexico to take actions to reduce theamount of illegal drug entering the UnitedStates from Mexico, and to take effectivelaw enforcement actions to deal with illegaldrugs activities, especially illegal narcoticstrafficking.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN ETHIOPIA

Amendment No. 162: Deletes House lan-guage requiring the State Department toclosely monitor and take into accounthuman rights progress in Ethiopia as it obli-gates fiscal year 1996 assistance for thatcountry. The managers expect the Depart-ment of State to continue to be attentive tothis important issue.

BASIC EDUCATION OF CHILDREN

Amendment No. 163: Deletes House lan-guage providing that not more than$108,000,000 from the AID ‘‘Children and Dis-ease Programs Fund’’ may be used for basiceducation for children. The conference agree-ment does not contain such a fund.

KOREAN PENINSULA ENERGY DEVELOPMENTORGANIZATION

Amendment No. 164: Deletes Senate lan-guage. This matter is addressed in amend-ment no. 94.

DRAWDOWN AUTHORITY FOR JORDAN

Amendment No. 165: Inserts Senate lan-guage which provides that the President maydirect the drawdown of up to $100,000,000 ofdefense articles, service and training fromthe Department of Defense for Jordan.

An important opportunity exists to pro-mote the ongoing Arab-Israeli peace processwhich the administration can seize withoutthe need for additional appropriated funds.Jordan’s signing of a treaty of peace with Is-rael and its break with Iraq has now exposedJordan to the risks of peace. Jordan’s as-sumption of these burdens should be ac-knowledged by including Jordan with Israeland Egypt for the statutory designation of a

major ‘‘non-NATO’’ ally. Further, the ad-ministration should honor this increasedrisk to Jordan’s security brought about byits break with Iraq and accepting peace withIsrael by carefully reviewing the Govern-ment of Jordan’s request to acquire up to 80Egyptian-American built M1A1 tanks to ad-dress its near-term security needs.

FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF FEMALE GENITALMULTILATION

Amendment No. 166: Deletes Senate lan-guage amending chapter 7 of title 18, UnitedStates Code, imposing fines and criminalpenalties on those who violate the provisionsof the proposed amendment regarding femalemutilation. The Senate amendment wouldhave also required the Secretary of Healthand Human Services to conduct informationand education activities regarding femalemutilation.

The managers urge the authorization com-mittees of the Congress to review this issueas soon as possible, and to report legislationas appropriate.

LIBERIA

Amendment No. 167: Inserts language,amending Public Law 102–270, that would ex-empt Liberia from the provisions of section620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act and sec-tion 512 of this Act. The new language wouldexempt assistance to Liberia from provisionsof these sections for funds appropriated inthis Act. The Senate amendment would haveprovided a permanent exemption for Liberiafrom these sections, and also included lan-guage expressing the sense of the Congressregarding the peace process in Liberia. TheHouse bill contained no provision on thismatter.

ANNUAL REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIALGROWTH

Amendment No. 168: Inserts languagewhich requires the President to submit anannual report to the appropriate committeesproviding a concise overview of the prospectsfor economic and social growth on a broad,equitable and sustainable basis in countriesreceiving assistance under title II of thisAct, to include criteria regarding wage andprice controls, State ownership productionand distribution, State control of financialinstitutions, trade and investment, capitaland profit repatriation, tax and private prop-erty protections and a country’s commit-ment to stimulate education, health andhuman development. The report shall be sub-mitted with the Administration’s annualcongressional presentation for appropria-tions.

BUY AMERICA PROVISIONS FOR MAPPING &SURVEYING SERVICES

Amendment No. 169: Inserts Senate lan-guage requiring that, to the maximum ex-tent possible, the funds provided in this Actshall be used to provide surveying and map-ping related services through contracts en-tered into through competitive bidding toqualified United States contractors. TheHouse bill contained no provision on thismatter.

ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES

Amendment No. 170: Deletes Senate lan-guage requiring agencies funded in this Actto achieve certain specified energy savings.The House bill contained no provision onthis matter.

REPORTS REGARDING HONG KONG

Amendment No. 171: Inserts language re-quiring a March 31, 1996 report on Hong Kongconsistent with the provisions of the UnitedStates-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, and in-cludes Senate language regarding the con-tent of said report. The House bill containedno provision on this matter.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10991October 26, 1995HONDURAS

Amendment No. 172: Deletes Senate lan-guage regarding Honduras.

The conferees note that during the 1980’s, asecret Honduran army death squad known asBattalion 316 allegedly engaged in a cam-paign of systematically kidnapping, tortur-ing and murdering suspected subversives.Victims included Honduran students, teach-ers, labor leaders, and journalists. Also, in1993 there were reportedly 184 unsolved casesof persons who were allegedly ‘‘disappeared’’,and are presumed dead. The conferees urgethe President to order the expedited declas-sification of any documents in the possessionof the United States Government pertainingto persons who allegedly ‘‘disappeared’’ inHonduras, and promptly make such docu-ments available to Honduran authoritieswho are seeking to determine the fate ofthese individuals.

REPORT ON RUSSIAN MILITARY OPERATIONS

Amendment No. 173: Deletes Senate lan-guage which requires the President to de-classify and resubmit to the Congress nolater than three months after the date of en-actment a report on Russian military oper-ations as required by section 528 of PublicLaw 103–236.

The conferees request that the Administra-tion submit to Congress a declassified ver-sion of the report submitted pursuant to sec-tion 528 of P.L. 103–236. The conferees under-stand declassification will be to the maxi-mum extent possible.

The report shall also provide an unclassi-fied assessment of: (a) Russian compliancewith the Russian-Moldovan agreement of Oc-tober 24, 1994; (b) allegations of Russian in-volvement in the September 1994 coup at-tempt against the Azerbaijan government;(c) the Russian deployment of troops of theMinistry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, orany other security agency to secure the bor-ders of the New Independent States (NIS) ofthe former Soviet Union; (d) Russian effortsto integrate the security, defense and intel-ligence forces of the government of the NIS;and (e) compliance with the Treaty on Con-ventional Armed Forces in Europe.LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES THAT

RESTRICT THE TRANSPORT OF DELIVERY OFUNITED STATES HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 174: Deletes Senate lan-guage which prohibits funds for any countryif the government of such country prohibitsor otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly,the transport or delivery of United Stateshumanitarian assistance. This matter is ad-dressed in amendment No. 147.

Amendment No. 175: Inserts language pro-viding that up to $20,000,000 of the fundsmade available through ‘‘Development As-sistance’’ or ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ maybe transferred to ‘‘International NarcoticsControl’’. Senate language would have re-quired such a transfer from funds madeavailable to the Agency for International De-velopment. The House bill contained no pro-vision on this matter.

GUATEMALA

Amendment No. 176: Deletes Senate lan-guage and inserts new language which allowsthe Guatemalan military to receive ex-panded IMET only, or FMF funds only if thePresident certifies that the Guatemalanmilitary is cooperating with efforts to re-solve human rights abuses. The prohibitionsincluded in this section shall not apply tofunds made available to implement a cease-fire or peace agreement. Any funds madeavailable are subject to the regular notifica-tion procedures of the Committees on Appro-priations. This matter is addressed inamendment No. 63.

The conferees commend the GuatemalanPresident for his efforts to negotiate a peace-

ful settlement of the civil war in Guatemalaand to improve respect for human rights andthe rule of law. The conferees are disturbedby reports that members of the military andsecurity forces continue to commit humanrights abuses including several cases involv-ing American citizens. The conferees haveincluded a provision which conditions aid tothe military and security forces on their co-operation in resolving human rights abuseswhich their members are alleged to havecommitted, ordered or attempted to thwartthe investigation of. The conferees intendthat the cases listed in the April 7, 1995 bi-partisan letter to President Clinton bytwelve members of the U.S. Senate, as wellas the murder of U.S. Ambassador John Gor-don Mein, should be among those of particu-lar concern.

PERU AND NARCOTICS

Amendment No. 177: Deletes Senate lan-guage making a number of findings regard-ing actions by the government of Peru in-volving illegal drug activities, and express-ing the sense of the Senate on the provisionof military equipment to Peru for drug inter-diction activities. The House bill containedno provision on this matter.

ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

Amendment No. 178: Deletes Senate lan-guage earmarking $5,000,000 of ESF funds forTurkey to promote economic growth, cul-tural and ethnic tolerance, human rights ac-tivities, and non-governmental organizationsin southeastern Turkey.

HONG KONG ELECTIONS

Amendment No. 179: Deletes Senate lan-guage making a number of findings regard-ing elections in Hong Kong, and expressingthe sense of the Congress regarding variousaspects of these elections. The House billcontained no provision on this matter.

SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THAILAND

Amendment No. 180: Deletes Senate senseof the Senate language regarding the Gov-ernment of Thailand’s relations with theKhmer Rouge.

EXTENSION OF TIED AID CREDIT PROGRAM

Amendment No. 181: Inserts Senate lan-guage extending through 1997 the authorityof the Export-Import Bank to conduct tiedaid credit programs. Deletes Senate lan-guage authorizing a demonstration project.

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS REVIEW

Amendment No. 182: Inserts Senate lan-guage which requires that for a period of oneyear beginning three years after the date ofenactment of this Act, the United Statesshall not use antipersonnel landmines exceptalong internationally recognized nationalborders or in demilitarized zones within a pe-rimeter marked area that is monitored bymilitary personnel and protected by ade-quate means to ensure the exclusion of civil-ians. The managers agree that this issuemust be closely monitored in the periodleading up to the moratorium’s implementa-tion and that the case of Guantanamo Bay,Cuba, must be carefully reviewed in light ofthe moratorium’s application to this espe-cially sensitive facility.

The conferees recognize the global crisiscaused by unexploded landmines. Accordingto the Department of State, there are an es-timated 80,000,000 to 110,000,000 landmines de-ployed in 62 countries. As a result, the con-ferees urge the President to actively encour-age other governments to join the U.S. insolving the global landmine problem by im-plementing moratoria on the use of anti-personnel landmines similar to the U.S. mor-atorium as a step toward the elimination ofantipersonnel landmines.

The conferees recommend that the U.S.should not sell, license for export, or other-wise transfer defense articles and services to

any foreign government which, as deter-mined by the President, sells, exports or oth-erwise transfers antipersonnel landmines.

EXTENSION OF AU PAIR PROGRAMS

Amendment No. 183: Inserts language ex-tending the authority for the Au Pair pro-gram of the U.S. Information Agencythrough fiscal year 1996. The Senate amend-ment would have extended such authoritythrough fiscal year 1998. The House bill con-tained no provision on this matter.

AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT

Amendment No. 184: Deletes Senate lan-guage regarding authorization requirementsfor funds provided in this Act. This matter isaddressed in amendment no. 121.

CROATIAN-AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND

Amendment No. 185: Deletes Senate lan-guage authorizing the creation of a Croatian-American Enterprise Fund. The languagewould also have earmarked $12,000,000 forsuch fund from ‘‘Assistance for Eastern Eu-rope and the Baltic States’’.

SANCTIONS AGAINST COUNTRIES HARBORINGWAR CRIMINALS

Amendment No. 186: Inserts language thatwould not allow funds appropriated in thisAct to be made available for the governmentof any country that is knowingly grantingsanctuary to war criminals. Such criminalswould include those indicted by the Inter-national Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia or the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda, or Nazi war criminals.The Senate language would have restrictedbilateral and multilateral assistance pro-vided in such fiscal year for any countrywhich harbored war criminals. The Housebill contained no provision on this matter.

RUSSIAN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CFE TREATYAND PRIORITIES FOR MODIFYING EXISTINGARMS AGREEMENTS

Amendment No. 187: Deletes Senate lan-guage. The conferees consider compliancewith the terms of the Treaty on Conven-tional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) an im-portant priority in U.S. relations with theRussian Federation. The conferees believethe Treaty provides adequate means bywhich the Russian Federation can meet itsmilitary requirements for treaty limitedequipment in the flank zones defined by Ar-ticle V of the Treaty. The conferees stronglybelieve that efforts by the Government ofRussia to modify CFE Treaty obligations, in-cluding those regarding movement or de-ployment of treaty limited equipment on theflanks, must be resolved through negotia-tions, not unilateral reinterpretation/

Amendment No. 188: This matter is dealtwith in Amendment no. 192.

LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO HAITI

Amendment No. 189: Deletes Senate lan-guage and inserts language which prohibitsthe availability of funds for Haiti unless thePresident determines that the government ofHaiti is conducting thorough investigationsof political and extrajudicial killings and co-operating with U.S. authorities in the inves-tigation of political and extrajudicialkillings. The managers agree that nothing insubsection (a) shall be construed to restrictthe provision of humanitarian or electoralassistance to Haiti. The President may waivethe requirements of this section if he deter-mines and certifies to the appropriate com-mittees of Congress that it is the nationalinterest of the United States or necessary toensure the safe and timely withdrawal ofAmerican forces from Haiti.

LIMITATION ON FUNDS TO THE TERRITORY OFTHE BOSNIA-CROAT FEDERATION

Amendment No. 190: Inserts Senate lan-guage limiting United States assistance to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10992 October 26, 1995Bosnia and Herzegovina (other than refugeeand disaster assistance, and assistance forrestoration of certain infrastructure) to theterritory of the Bosnia-Croat Federation.The House bill contained no provision onthis matter.

PLAN RECOMMENDING A STRATEGIC

REORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Amendment No. 191: Deletes Senate lan-guage requiring a plan for a strategic reorga-nization of the United Nations.

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary ofthe United Nations, the conferees concurwith the Administration’s stated intentionto implement significant management andfinancial reforms. Accordingly the confereesrequest a report to be submitted in conjunc-tion with the fiscal year 1997 budget requestregarding reorganization of the United Na-tions. The report should include proposals toachieve (a) reductions in the number of agen-cies within the UN system including propos-als to abolish, consolidate or restructure fi-nancing mechanisms for agencies with lowpriority; (b) the identification and strength-ening of core agencies; (c) the increased co-operation and elimination of duplication be-tween UN headquarters and offices in Genevaand the merger of technical cooperationfunctions of various UN agencies; (d) theconsolidation of the UN emergency responsemechanisms by merging functions in rel-evant agencies; and (e) improvements in theadministrative and management capabilitiesof the Secretary General.

NATO PARTICIPATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1995

Amendment No. 192: Inserts languagewhich amends the NATO Participation Actof 1994 and provides that the Presidentshould evaluate the degree to which anycountry emerging from communist domina-tion which has expressed its interest in join-ing NATO meets certain specified criteria.The President may within 60 days designateone or more of these countries as eligible toreceive assistance under the program estab-lished by the NATO Participation Act of1994.

TITLE VI—MIDDLE EAST PEACEFACILITATION ACT OF 1995

Inserts additional language to the Senateproposed ‘‘Middle East Peace FacilitationAct of 1995’’ (which extends the authority ofthe President to waive certain provisions oflaw to facilitate the provision of U.S. assist-ance in support of the Middle East peaceprocess). The House provisions increase ac-countability and provide additional detailedoversight over the provision of U.S. funds insupport of the Middle East peace process, ei-ther directly or indirectly, to the P.L.O., thePalestinian Authority, and successor enti-ties. The managers further agree to extendthe President’s authority to suspend certainprovisions of law from twelve months toeighteen months.

The managers believe that the informationprovided pursuant to section 604(b)(5)(E)should be as extensive as possible and in ac-cordance with AID’s normal accountingpractices. With respect to section604(b)(5)(F), this section does not require adetailed listing of all statements of seniorofficials of the PLO, the Palestinian Author-ity and successor entities but rather an as-sessment of such statements, with attribu-tion of those specific statements which bestreflects the issues of concern described inthis subparagraph. The managers also notethat the reference to Jerusalem in section604(c)(9) is not intended to suggest that thePalestinian Authority will operate in Jeru-salem under the Interim Agreement; ratherthis section emphasizes the managers’ con-cern that the PLO not purport to affect thestatus of Jerusalem.

TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA, ANDCOUNTRIES ASSISTING BURMA, UNLESS BURMAOBSERVES HUMAN RIGHTS AND PERMITS PO-LITICAL FREEDOM

Amendment No. 193: Deletes Senate lan-guage imposing sanctions against Burma andcountries assisting Burma.

CONFERENCE TOTAL—WITH COMPARISONS

The total new budget (obligational) au-thority for the fiscal year 1996 recommendedby the Committee of Conference, with com-parisons to the fiscal year 1995 amount, the1996 budget estimates, and the House andSenate bills for 1996 follow:New budget (obligational)

authority, fiscal year1995 ................................. $13,654,521,750

Budget estimates of new(obligational) authorityfiscal year 1996 ................ 14,773,904,666

House bill, fiscal year 1996 . 11,901,375,000Senate bill, fiscal year 1996 12,413,914,000Conference agreement, fis-

cal year 1996 .................... 12,103,536,669Conference agreement

compared with:New budget

(obligational) author-ity, fiscal year 1995 ...... ¥1,550,985,081

Budget estimates of new(obligational) author-ity, fiscal year 1996 ...... ¥2,670,367,997

House bill, fiscal year1996 .............................. +202,161,669

Senate bill, fiscal year1996 .............................. ¥310,377,331

SONNY CALLAHAN,JOHN EDWARD PORTER,BOB LIVINGSTON,JIM LIGHTFOOT,FRANK R. WOLF,RON PACKARD,JOE KNOLLENBERG,MICHAEL FORBES,JIM BUNN,CHARLES WILSON,SIDNEY R. YATES,NANCY PELOSI,ESTEBAN E. TORRES,DAVID OBEY,

Managers on the part of the House.

MITCH MCCONNELL,ARLEN SPECTER,CONNIE MACK,JAMES M. JEFFORDS,JUDD GREGG,RICHARD SHELBY,ROBERT F. BENNETT,MARK O. HATFIELD,PATRICK LEAHY,DANIEL K. INOUYE,FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,TOM HARKIN,BARBARA A. MIKULSKI,PATTY MURRAY,ROBERT C. BYRD.

Managers on the part of the Senate.

f

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission toaddress the House, following the legis-lative program and any special ordersheretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Ms. FURSE) to revise and ex-tend their remarks and include extra-neous material:)

Mr. SKAGGS, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. WISE, for 5 minutes, today.Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today.Ms. FURSE, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, for 5 minutes,

today.Mr. OWENS, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. LAFALCE, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. PALLONE, for 5 minutes, today.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. RIGGS) to revise and ex-

tend their remarks and include extra-neous material:)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana, for 5 minutes,today.

Mr. KIM, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. RADANOVICH, for 5 minutes,

today.Mr. BUYER, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. HUNTER, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. SHAYS, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. TIAHRT, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. HORN, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. UPTON, for 5 minutes, on October

30.

f

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission torevise and extend remarks was grantedto.

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Ms. FURSE) and to include ex-traneous matter:)

Ms. HARMAN.Mr. TOWNS.Mr. LIPINSKI.Mr. MENENDEZ.Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts in two in-

stances.Mr. TORRES.Mr. DURBIN.Mrs. SCHROEDER.Mr. RANGEL.Mr. BONIOR.Mr. SERRANO.Mr. WARD.Mr. FOGLIETTA in three instances.Mr. LANTOS.Mr. SANDERS.Mr. STOKES.Mr. SKAGGS.Mr. MEEHAN.Mr. ANDREWS.Mr. EDWARDS.Mr. PALLONE.Mr. FILNER.Ms. JACKSON-LEE.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. RIGGS) and to include ex-traneous matter:)

Mr. DELAY.Mr. CRANE.Mr. DAVIS.Mr. QUINN.Mr. WICKER.Mr. GILMAN in two instances.Mr. GALLEGLY.Mr. DUNCAN.Mr. GUNDERSON.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. RIGGS) and to include ex-traneous matter:)

Mr. PORTER.Mr. STARK.Mr. OWENS.Mr. NEY in two instances.Mr. GONZALEZ.Mr. CARDIN.Mr. FARR of California.Mr. SERRANO.Mr. WICKER.Mr. SMITH of Michigan.

f

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committeeon House Oversight, reported that that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 10993October 26, 1995committee had examined and foundtruly enrolled bills of the House of thefollowing titles, which were thereuponsigned by the Speaker:

H.R. 716. An act to amend the Fishermen’sProtective Act; and

H.R. 1026. An act to designate the UnitedStates Post Office building located at 201East Pikes Peak Avenue in ColoradoSprings, Colorado, as the ‘‘Winfield ScottStratton Post Office.’’

f

SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The SPEAKER announced his signa-ture to an enrolled bill of the Senate ofthe following title:

S. 1322. An act to provide for the relocationof the United States Embassy in Israel to Je-rusalem, and for other purposes.

f

BILLS PRESENTED TO THEPRESIDENT

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committeeon House Oversight, reported that thatcommittee did on this day present tothe President, for his approval, a bill ofthe House of the following title:

H.R. 402. An act to amend the Alaska Na-tive Claims Settlement Act, and for otherreasons.

f

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move thatthe House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accord-ingly (at 9 o’clock and 59 minutesp.m.), under its previous order, theHouse adjourned until Monday, Octo-ber 30, 1995, at 12:30 p.m.

f

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu-tive communications were taken fromthe Speaker’s table and referred as fol-lows:

1561. Chairman, Board of Governors, Fed-eral Reserve System, transmitting the Fed-eral Reserve System’s report on State mem-ber bank compliance with the NationalFlood Insurance Program, pursuant to Pub-lic Law 103–325, section 529(a) (108 Stat. 2266);to the Committee on Banking and FinancialServices.

1562. Assistant Secretary for LegislativeAffairs, Department of State, transmitting areport to Congress on Russia’s status as anadherent to the Missile Technology ControlRegime [MTCR], pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2797b–1; to the Committee on International Rela-tions.

1563. Director, Defense Security AssistanceAgency, transmitting notification that theDepartment of Defense has completed deliv-ery of defense articles, services, and trainingon the attached list to Ecuador, pursuant to22 U.S.C. 2318(b)(2); to the Committee onInternational Relations.

1564. Auditor, District of Columbia, trans-mitting a copy of a report entitled, ‘‘Reviewof the Public Service Commission AgencyFund for Fiscal Year 1994,’’ pursuant to D.C.Code, section 47–117(d); to the Committee onGovernment Reform and Oversight.

1565. Director, Office of Personnel Manage-ment, transmitting the agency’s annual re-port on drug and alcohol abuse prevention,

treatment, and rehabilitation programs andservices for Federal civilian employees cov-ering fiscal year 1994, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.7363; to the Committee on Government Re-form and Oversight.

1566. Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Districtof Columbia Circuit, transmitting an opinionof the court of appeals for the District of Co-lumbia (94–7143 & 94–7144—Washington ServiceContractors Coalition, et al. v. D.C., et al.); tothe Committee on Government Reform andOversight.

1567. Director, Woodrow Wilson Inter-national Center for Scholars, transmittingthe annual report on activities of the inspec-tor general for fiscal year 1995, pursuant to 5U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) Sec. 5(b); to theCommittee on Government Reform andOversight.

1568. Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Districtof Columbia Circuit, transmitting an opinionof the United States Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia (94–5088—Atkins, et al. v.FEC); to the Committee on House Oversight.

1569. Chair, Foreign Claims SettlementCommission of the United States, transmit-ting the annual report of its activities forcalendar year 1994, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. app.2008 and 22 U.S.C. 1622a; to the Committee onthe Judiciary.

1570. American Gold Star Mothers, Inc.,transmitting the organization’s report andfinancial audit for the period ending June 30,1995, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 1101(63) and 1103;to the Committee on the Judiciary.

f

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ONPUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports ofcommittees were delivered to the Clerkfor printing and reference to the propercalendar, as follows:

Mr. MYERS: Committee of Conference.Conference report on H.R. 1905. A bill mak-ing appropriations for energy and water de-velopment for the fiscal year ending Septem-ber 30, 1996, and for other purposes (Rept.104–293). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. WALSH: Committee on Appropria-tions. H.R. 2546. A bill making appropria-tions for the government of the District ofColumbia and other activities chargeable inwhole or in part against the revenues of saidDistrict for the fiscal year ending September30, 1996, and for other purposes (Rept. 104–294). Referred to the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union.

Mr. CALLAHAN: Committee of Conference.Conference report on H.R. 1868. A bill mak-ing appropriations for foreign operations, ex-port financing, and related programs for thefiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and forother purposes (Rept. 104–295). Ordered to beprinted.

f

REPORTED BILL SEQUENTIALLYREFERRED

Under clause 5 of rule X, the follow-ing action was taken by the Speaker:

H.R. 994. The amendment recommended bythe Committee on Government Reform andOversight referred to the Committee onCommerce for a period not to exceed Nov. 3,1995 for consideration of such provisions ofthe amendment as fall within the jurisdic-tion of that committee pursuant to clause1(e), rule X.

f

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 5 of rule X and clause 4of rule XXII, public bills and resolu-

tions were introduced and severally re-ferred as follows:

By Mr. MCCOLLUM (for himself andMr. SCHUMER):

H.R. 2538. A bill to make clerical and tech-nical amendments to title 18, United StatesCode, and other provisions of law relating tocrime and criminal justice; to the Commit-tee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr.PETRI, Mr. RAHALL, and Ms. MOL-INARI):

H.R. 2539. A bill to abolish the InterstateCommerce Commission, to amend subtitle IVof title 49, United States Code, to reform eco-nomic regulation of transportation, and forother purposes; to the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure.

By Mr. DELAY (for himself, Mr. FIELDSof Texas, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. EWING,Mr. STUMP, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr.FUNDERBURK, Mr. CRANE, Mr. STOCK-MAN, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr.HAYWORTH):

H.R. 2540. A bill to amend title 10, UnitedStates Code, to prohibit any member of theArmed Forces from being required to wear aspart of the military uniform any indicia orinsignia of the United Nations; to the Com-mittee on National Security.

By Mr. GILLMAN:H.R. 2541. A bill to establish an Assistant

Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security;to the Committee on International Rela-tions.

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr.ROBERTS):

H.R. 2542. A bill to consolidate conserva-tion cost-share assistance programs of theDepartment of Agriculture, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,and in addition to the Committee on Re-sources, for a period to be subsequently de-termined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. CHRYSLER:H.R. 2543. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction fortuition and fees for undergraduate and post-secondary vocational education; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Miss COLLINS of Michigan:H.R. 2544. A bill to require the Commis-

sioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics toconduct time use surveys of unremuneratedwork performed in the United States and tocalculate the monetary value of such work;to the Committee on Economic and Edu-cational Opportunities.

By Ms. MCKINNEY:H.R. 2545. A bill to provide that a State

that uses a system of limited voting, cumu-lative voting, or preference voting may es-tablish multimember congressional districts;to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WALSH:H.R. 2546. A bill making appropriations for

the government of the District of Columbiaand other activities chargeable in whole orin part against the revenues of said Districtfor the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996,and for other purposes.

By Mr. DUNCAN:H.R. 2547. A bill to designate the U.S.

courthouse located at 800 Market Street inKnoxville, TN, as the ‘‘Howard H. Baker, Jr.United States Courthouse’’; to the Commit-tee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

By Mr. DUNCAN (for himself, Mr.HEFLEY, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr.COOLEY, and Mr. HANSEN):

H.R. 2548. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 to allow individuals to des-ignate any portion of their income tax over-payments, and to make other contributions,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 10994 October 26, 1995for the benefit of units of the National ParkSystem; to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. FARR:H.R. 2549. A bill to authorize the Secretary

of the Interior to enter into contracts to as-sist the Pajaro Valley Water ManagementAgency, CA, to implement a basin manage-ment plan for the elimination of ground-water overdraft and seawater intrusion, andfor other purposes; to the Committee on Re-sources.

By Mr. HEFLEY (for himself, Mr.ROHRABACHER, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr.COX, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr.CUNNINGHAM, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.DREIER, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr.FUNDERBURK, Mr. ROYCE, Mr.METCALF, Mr. HERGER, Mr.CHRISTENSEN, Mr. STUMP, Mr. SAMJOHNSON, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. ROTHMrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. NEU-MANN, Mr. BONILLA, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr.KLECZKA, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. CHABOT,Mrs. SEASTRAND, Mr. RADANOVICH,Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. BURTON of Indi-ana, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr.WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. GEKAS, Mr.SANFORD, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylva-nia, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SALMON, Mrs.CHENOWETH, Mr. TAYLOR of NorthCarolina, Mr. HASTINGS of Washing-ton, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. PETERSON ofMinnesota, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. SMITHof New Jersey, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr.MCKEON, Mr. KIM, Mr. RIGGS, Mr.DOOLITTLE, Mr. BONO, Mr.KNOLLENBERG, Mr. UPTON, Mr.MCINNIS, Mr. BUYER, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr.HORN, Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, Ms.DUNN of Washington, Mr. CALVERT,and Mr. FORBES):

H.R. 2550. A bill to prohibit the use of fundsappropriated to the Department of Defensefrom being used for the deployment on theground of United States Armed Forces in theRepublic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as partof any peacekeeping operation, or as part ofany implementation force, unless such devel-opment is specifically authorized by law; tothe Committee on National Security, and inaddition to the Committee on InternationalRelations, for a period to be subsequently de-termined by the Speaker, in each case forconsideration of such provisions as fall with-in the jurisdiction of the committee con-cerned.

By Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr.SPENCE, Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. WALSH,Mr. KLECZKA, Ms. PELOSI, Mrs.THURMAN, Mr. BROWN of California,Mr. FROST, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, and Mr.FRAZER):

H.R. 2551. A bill to establish a congres-sional commemorative medal for organ do-nors and their families; to the Committee onBanking and Financial Services, and in addi-tion to the Committee on Commerce, for aperiod to be subsequently determined by theSpeaker, in each case for consideration ofsuch provisions as fall within the jurisdic-tion of the committee concerned.

By Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi (forhimself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr.ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BAKER of Louisi-ana, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. BISHOP, Mr.BORSKI, Mr. BROWDER, Mr. CALLAHAN,Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr.CONDIT, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. COYNE,Mr. DAVIS, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr.DELLUMS, Mr. DE LA GARZA, Mr. DIN-GELL, Mr. EVERETT, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr.FROST, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. HALL ofTexas, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HEFNER, Mr.LEWIS of California, Mr. LEWIS ofGeorgia, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. MATSUI,Mr. MCDADE, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr.MCNULTY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr.MILLER of California, Mr. MONTGOM-ERY, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. MURTHA, Mr.MYERS of Indiana, Mr. NEAL of Mas-sachusetts, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PARKER,Mr. PAYNE of Virginia, Mr. ROBERTS,Mr. ROSE, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. SKELTON,Mr. SPRATT, Mr. STUMP, Mr. TANNER,Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. THORNTON, Mrs.THURMAN, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr.UNDERWOOD, Mr. VENTO, Mrs. VUCAN-OVICH, Mr. WICKER, Mr. EHLERS, Mr.ROMERO-BARCELO, Mr. WILSON, Mr.EVANS, and Mr. HOYER):

H.R. 2552. A bill to transfer the Tatum SaltDome property to the State of Mississippi tobe designated by the State as the JamieWhitten Wilderness Area; to the Committeeon Resources.

By Mr. WOLF:H.R. 2553. A bill to provide for pilot pro-

grams conducted by the Federal Prison In-dustries to test the feasibility of meeting theneed for increased employment of Federalprisoners by producing items, for the privatemarket, in conjunction with private UnitedStates firms, that would otherwise be pro-duced by foreign labor; to the Committee onthe Judiciary.

By Mr. GALLEGLY:H. Con. Res. 111. Concurrent resolution au-

thorizing the printing of a report to theSpeaker of the House of Representatives,prepared by the Congressional Task Force onImmigration Reform; to the Committee onHouse Oversight.

By Mr. KANJORSKI:H. Res. 246. Resolution providing for the

consideration of the bill H.R. 302, and amend-ments thereto, to ensure timely payment ofSocial Security and Medicare benefits, toprotect the stability of financial markets, topreserve the credit rating of the U.S. Gov-ernment, and for other purposes, by increas-ing the statutory limit on the public debt; tothe Committee on Rules.

f

PRIVATE BILLS ANDRESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII.Mr. SAXTON introduced a bill (H.R. 2554)

to authorize the Secretary of Transportationto issue a certificate of documentation withappropriate endorsement for employment inthe coastwise trade and on the Great Lakesand their tributary and connecting waters intrade with Canada for the vessel M/V MarionC II: which was referred to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.

f

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsorswere added to public bills and resolu-tions as follows:

H.R. 44: Mr. GEPHARDT, and Mr. FATTAH.H.R. 63: Mr. BLUTE.H.R. 65: Mr. WYDEN.H.R. 127: Mr. MASCARA, Mr. WISE, and Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA.H.R. 394: Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. JONES, and

Mr. BOUCHER.H.R. 468: Mr. SAM JOHNSON.

H.R. 497: Mr. LARGENT, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr.WHITE, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KINGS-TON, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Ms. DUNN ofWashington, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.LANTOS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. HAYES, Mr. COLE-MAN, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr.TRAFICANT, and Mr. GORDON.

H.R. 528: Mr. STUDDS, Mrs. VUCANOVICH,Mr. TORRES, and Mr. SANDERS.

H.R. 850: Mr. BACHUS.H.R. 1021: Mr. MATSUI.H.R. 1023: Mr. FORBES and Mr. HILLIARD.H.R. 1090: Mr. SKEEN.H.R. 1124: Mr. BONIOR.H.R. 1133: Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. BARTLETT of

Maryland, and Mr. LOBIONDO.H.R. 1202: Mr. HEINEMAN, Mr. MORAN, and

Mr. BOEHLERT.H.R. 1226: Mr. NORWOOD.H.R. 1488: Mr. STEARNS, Mr. CREMEANS, Mr.

MCKEON, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. DEAL of Geor-gia, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. GEKAS, andMr. COOLEY.

H.R. 1493: Mr. ABERCROMBIE.H.R. 1500: Mr. CLYBURN and Mr. REED.H.R. 1619: Mr. BALDACCI, Ms. DANNER, Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts, and Mr. GRAHAM.H.R. 1733: Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.

FROST, and Mr. MCKEON.H.R. 1749: Mr. OWENS.H.R. 1796: Mr. PACKARD.H.R. 1834: Mr. DORNAN and Mr. GOODLATTE.H.R. 1846: Ms. DELAURO, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. GONZALEZ, and Mrs.LOWEY.

H.R. 1856: Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr.MARTINI, and Mr. BARR.

H.R. 1920: Ms. DANNER and Mr. BALDACCI.H.R. 2009: Ms. PELOSI and Mr. OBERSTAR.H.R. 2143: Ms. NORTON.H.R. 2178: Ms. MCKINNEY and Miss COLLINS

of Michigan.H.R. 2181: Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr.

REED, and Mr. STUPAK.H.R. 2190: Mr. ROTH, Mr. WICKER, and Ms.

HARMAN.H.R. 2211: Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. FILNER, Ms.

RIVERS, and Mr. RUSH.H.R. 2240: Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. WALSH, Mr.

WILSON, and Mr. FLANAGAN.H.R. 2326: Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA.H.R. 2328: Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA.H.R. 2407: Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas.H.R. 2422: Mr. RICHARDSON.H.R. 2433: Mr. HEFNER, Mr. FRAZER, Mrs.

MALONEY, Mr. WILSON, Mr. CLAY, Ms. WOOL-SEY, Mr. GOSS, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. CALVERT.

H.R. 2435: Mr. MINGE, Mr. WICKER, and Mr.LUCAS.

H.R. 2443: Mr. FATTAH.H.R. 2458: Mr. LANTOS, Mr. TORRICELLI, and

Mr. ROYCE.H.R. 2470: Mr. EMERSON and Mr. STUMP.H.R. 2474: Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. COSTELLO,

Mr. POMEROY, Mr. LIPINSKI, Ms. DANNER, Mr.EVANS, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr.NUSSLE, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. GANSKE, Mr. KLUG,and Mr. MINGE.

H.R. 2483: Mr. KINGSTON and Mr. SOLOMON.H.R. 2508: Ms. DANNER, Mr. STUPAK, and

Mr. VOLKMER.H.R. 2523: Mr. BLUTE and Mr. LIPINSKI.H.J. Res. 87: Mr. HANCOCK.H.J. Res. 89: Mr. NORWOOD.H.J. Res. 114: Mr. SANDERS, Mr. ABERCROM-

BIE, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, and Mr. LI-PINSKI.

H. Con. Res. 5: Mr. COOLEY.H. Res. 39: Mr. BONIOR.H. Res. 214: Mr. WAMP, Mr. HOLDEN, and

Mr. DOGGETT.

congressional record › 104 › crec › 1995 › 10 › 26 › crec-1995...1995/10/26 · payers....

Documents