[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4344-H4356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 889, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
                  AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 129 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res 129

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental appropriations 
     and rescissions to preserve and enhance the military 
     readiness of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from 
Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], and, pending that, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule responds to a national emergency 
in defense readiness and training. The rule makes in order for 
consideration the conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 889, 
making emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions to 
preserve and enhance the military readiness of the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
its consideration, and the conference report is to be considered as 
read.
  The conference report requires a waiver of the 3-day layover rule. 
This rule is being waived in order to permit the House to consider this 
very vital measure as quickly as possible. The Secretary of Defense 
recommended that this bill be completed by March 31, 1995, and since we 
failed to do that, we are trying to move as expeditiously as possible 
to get this done.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an historic day in the House of 
Representatives. The new majority completed the final legislation 
outlined in our Contract With America. The new majority proved that 
Congress is finally led by legislators that keep their promises and 
live up the commitments that they make. The new majority proved that 
they value families ahead of Government, cutting taxes and ensuring 
that every dollar returned to the people that earned it comes from 
reduced Government spending, rather than adding to the deficit. And the 
new majority made the Washington establishment lash out in anger 
because we are doing something totally new: cutting taxes, reducing 
government, and cutting the deficit.
  People take note of major accomplishments, Mr. Speaker. They measure 
Congress by high profile legislation, like the tax relief deficit 
reduction bill that we passed late last night. However, I believe that 
it is in the more mundane legislative accomplishments that we can 
really measure the difference in the House of Representatives between 
this year and past years. When I use the term ``mundane,'' I do not 
mean in any way to criticize my very dear friend, the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The conference report on this emergency defense supplemental 
appropriations bill is proof that we are making a real difference, 
changing the long-ingrained culture of deficit spending in Congress. 
For years those of us on this side of the aisle have said that we are 
committed to fiscal responsibility, that the Federal Government must 
live within its means. However, I can understand how people would want 
to see some results before they actually are sure that that is the 
case.
  The Contract With America proved that we keep our promises, and this 
conference report begins to establish the real record of fiscal 
responsibility American taxpayers have demanded.
  Our $4.7 trillion national debt is so massive it is almost 
incomprehensive. How did we get there? You can probably get as many 
reasons as there are Members of Congress. But I know that one reason is 
that in the past the standard operating procedure for this House, 
dealing with emergency spending, is to simply add to the deficit.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that era has come to an end. Things have changed. 
The new leadership has said that we will find offsetting cuts for all 
supplemental spending. While the big spenders said it could not be done 
with a $1.5 trillion Federal budget, it can. We are doing it here, and 
we will do it again with a disaster relief supplemental appropriations 
bill. In fact, it is now the only way for us to meet emergencies.
  Make no mistake, H.R. 889 makes supplemental appropriations of a 
truly emergency nature. It provides $3.04 billion in readiness funds. 
Those defense funds are offset with $2.5 billion in defense 
rescissions, $775 million in nondefense rescissions, and $142 million 
in foreign assistance rescissions.
  Two months ago some said that the House's original nondefense 
rescissions were going nowhere. They said the Senate would not even 
consider them. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that instead of failure, the 
House got much of what it wanted, and this bill cuts $746 million more 
than it spends. In other words, we are again doing the people's 
business and making a down payment on balancing the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the real changes in Congress are at least as evident 
when we send a bill like this to the President as when we cut taxes and 
cut spending to pay for it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
very fair rule and permit the House to consider this conference report. 
There is a critical national security need that must be met, and H.R. 
889 meets it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past few years this country has called on the 
men and women of our armed services to perform duties ranging from 
humanitarian assistance in Somalia to all out war in Iraq. These duties 
were performed superbly and with honor. There is not one of us here 
today who can feel anything but pride for the job our Armed Forces have 
done in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, or in the Caribbean.
  I would like to commend the conferees for their work with regard to 
the defense side of the conference report. While the increases in 
defense spending are not fully offset by direct defense cuts, this bill 
is certainly an improvement over the bill which the House sent to 
conference just a few weeks ago.
  [[Page H4345]] The bill still relies on some nondefense cuts to 
offset the additional defense spending. Those offsets include cuts of 
$200 million from environmental cleanup at the Department of Energy 
sites and $142 million in foreign assistance, as well as major cuts in 
the technology reinvestment program, the defense conversion grants that 
have been so important to companies in areas that have experienced 
significant losses of defense and aerospace jobs.
  We would like to raise some additional concerns with a number of 
other domestic rescissions in the conference report which are not 
needed to offset defense spending. A few examples of those cuts are $35 
million for student loans under the Pell Grant Program, $200 million 
for training and employment services, and $200 million for clean coal 
technology.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, the conference report effectively places a hold on 
any endangered species listing and critical habitat designations for 
the remainder of the year. We believe that the authorizing committee 
and not the Committee on Appropriations is the proper place to address 
this far-reaching and very critical issue.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rules does not allow separate votes on any 
of the amendments in disagreement. The conference report contains items 
which the House has not had the opportunity to consider before today, 
and we believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is only fair that some of these 
issues be voted on separately.
  Mr. Speaker, even though we have many reservations about the 
conference report, we support the rule because it is absolutely 
necessary that we have this bill on the President's desk as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply urge support of this very 
important first step toward dealing with the deficit, and at the same 
time dealing with emergency spending, and again I have to apologize not 
only to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for in any way 
leading one to believe that this might be a mundane measure, but also 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, Mr. Young, 
who has now joined us, and say that I believe this is extraordinarily 
important. I hope we can immediately report out this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 129, I call 
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 889) making emergency 
supplemental appropriations and rescissions to preserve and enhance the 
military readiness of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 129, the conference report is considered as having 
been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at page H4319.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].


                             general leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 889, and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was not objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the House 
what I believe to be an extraordinary--and I say to the gentleman from 
the Rules Committee [Mr. Dreier], nonmundane conference report to 
accompany H.R. 889, making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
the Department of Defense and rescinding additional budget authority.
  We need to adopt the conference report so that we can respond quickly 
to what we all acknowledge is an emergency in funding readiness 
operations.
  First, I want to acknowledge the valiant efforts of the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, the gentleman from 
Florida, [Mr. Young] and all of the members of that subcommittee, as 
well as all of the subcommittee chairmen who participated in the 
conference. They have worked diligently, along with the Members of the 
other body, to confect this conference agreement and have it ready 
today before the recess begins.
  It was not an easy conference, but I think that everyone worked so 
hard that we ended up with an extremely valuable product which will not 
only provide needed assistance and support to the young men and women 
in uniform in our armed services but ultimately will maintain the 
national security of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains $3,041,700,000 in new budget 
authority for the Department of Defense. All of this budget authority 
is paid for, mostly from other less critical defense programs. We 
offset $2,259,956,000 from the Defense Department. We provide 
$442,014,000 in offsets from defense-related sources, including foreign 
operations, nuclear facility cleanup, and military construction 
activities. Also, we include burden-sharing receipts totaling $360 
million that provide additional offsets. In total, we have provided a 
net reduction in defense and defense-related activities of $20,870,000.
  The bill also provides other cuts totaling $775,067,000 in nondefense 
budget rescissions., Taken in total, the bill provides a net budget 
authority reduction of $746,067,000. Let me repeat that. This bill has 
a net budget authority reduction of $746 million plus.
  I will include for the Record a table detailing these specific 
reductions.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a difficult conference on what I had hoped would 
be a not-too-difficult bill. But I would ask that the Members consider 
the following points as they consider this conference report:
  The bill is more than offset in budget authority, as I have 
indicated, by nearly three-quarters of $1 billion.
  It meets Secretary of Defense Perry's needs to replenish readiness 
accounts depleted by humanitarian peacekeeping operations.
  It also carries the emergency designation for funding that Secretary 
Perry has requested. And it makes a modest contribution to our 
readiness needs.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the appropriations mentioned, the 
agreement includes language requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to 
submit reports to the Congress each month concerning our loans and our 
currency agreements with Mexico.
  It also requires that certifications be made by the President to the 
Congress on that very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence in passing this measure. We need 
to have this bill clear Congress before we leave for the recess to 
avoid a major disruption in our readiness activities. Democrats and 
Republicans alike have worked hard in a bipartisan, bicameral spirit to 
approve this conference report in time for our departure. I urge all 
Members to vote for this agreement.
  At this point in the Record I would also like to insert a table 
reflecting the details of the conference. It is a very important 
conference report. Again, I urge its adoption.
[[Page H4346]] TH06AP95.000


[[Page H4347]] TH06AP95.001


[[Page H4348]] TH06AP95.002


[[Page H4349]] TH06AP95.003



                                                         [[Page H4350]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when this bill originally left the House, I voted 
against it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it took money 
from domestic programs to pay for some of the additional Pentagon 
spending in the bill.
  Second, the bill added to the deficit. At the time the bill left the 
House, the committee indicated that even though the outlays were not in 
balance, that in fact the bill was balanced in terms of budget 
authority. But after the bill passed the House, the committee produced 
a table, I did not produce that table, the committee produced a table, 
which indicated that in fact the bill, as it left the House, added $186 
million in budget authority to the deficit and it added $250 million in 
outlay spending to the deficit in the first year and $650 million to 
the deficit in the out years.
  I thought that was a very important reason to object to the bill. 
When we went to conference with the Senate, I offered a motion to 
instruct conferees. And essentially at that time what I said is that I 
was willing to overlook, though I was not enthusiastic about the idea, 
I was willing to overlook the fact that some domestic-related programs 
were used to finance some of the Pentagon spending in the bill, 
provided that the bill, in fact, would be paid for. So we asked the 
conferees to produce a bill which was, in fact, paid for.
  In conference, I did not sign the conference report for a number of 
reasons.
  First of all, because in the nondefense portion of this bill, it 
retains spending for an item which was strongly insisted on in the 
Senate, which begins a new construction program in the area of 
education. I, frankly, think it is silly and shortsighted and stupid, 
even though that program in and of itself may be useful, for us to 
spend money on that program which we do not have at the very same time 
that we are cutting money from existing education programs.
  Second, I wanted to register my objection to the fact that the 
committee continues to insist that we spend $14 million in my district 
which I do not want to spend. I do not know of another situation in the 
Congress where you have both U.S. Senators and the Member of the House 
representing a specific district asking that a project be canceled in 
our district. That is what we are asking to do. Yet the Congress, in 
what I regard as a typical lap dog puppy situation, again rolled over 
and decided to give the Navy the money for its toy again.
  Third, I do not like the fact that this is treated as an emergency 
and, therefore, does not count added defense spending in out years 
against the budget caps. In fact, it should, if we are serious about 
deficit reduction.
  And fourth, I was trying to help the administration on the issue of 
Jordan because the administration was asking for help in seeing to it 
that the Jordan debt provision, which in the Senate was originally 
contained in this bill, not be moved from this bill to the $17 billion 
rescission bill which we have sent to the Senate.
  But on that score, I would say that, in light of the administration's 
negotiations which they conducted last night in the Senate, without 
consultation on the side so far as I know, it appears to me that the 
White House does not mind being jerked around on the issue of Jordan. 
It would appear to me the White House does not mind being blackmailed 
on the issue of Jordan. And so if they do not care, why should I?
  So what I am going to do on the floor, now that I have registered my 
concern on the individual points, is to support this conference report, 
because in essence, it does what we asked them to do in the motion to 
instruct, and it does what the bill did not do when it originally left 
the House, which is to largely offset the spending with cuts, so it 
does remain significantly deficit neutral.
  So I think that in comparison to the House-passed package, this is 
much more preferable. Having registered my concerns on the details, I 
will, in the interest of comity and the interest of getting things 
done, recognize the progress that was made in the conference report and 
support the bill as it is reported.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me. Certainly I will reciprocate in the event that we run short of 
time, although I do not think that we will. I would just like to point 
out that insofar as the gentleman's objections to the educational 
infrastructure project are concerned, the gentleman from Louisiana and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who chairs the subcommittee 
on which the gentleman is the ranking minority member, totally agree 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin that that program is wasteful, 
inefficient, and almost constitutes a brand new entitlement for which 
the taxpayer to the U.S. Federal Government cannot possibly be expected 
to ultimately pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say further to the gentleman that the fact is that the other body 
pressed very hard for this program, notwithstanding the prognosis that 
in future legislative activities before this body, that this program 
will not be looked upon kindly. Yet, it was a compromise. It was an 
effort to reach an accommodation, at least temporarily, so this very 
important bill could go forward. Unfortunately, the whole appropriation 
was not stricken. But I totally share the sentiment of the gentleman 
and want to assure him that it was only agreed to for the purposes of 
comity with the other body in order to conclude the entire conference.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement, and I 
would say that I certainly recognize the value of the program that the 
Senate is trying to support, but it just seems to me that the worst 
thing one can do in a situation of tight budgets is to unfairly raise 
people's expectations about the ability of the Federal Government to 
fund yet another program when, in fact, we are making substantial 
reductions in programs that now do some very good things for a lot of 
people who need help.

                              {time}  1115

  I share the gentleman's view on that point, and would simply observe 
that for all of the Members who voted for the motion to instruct, 
demanding that conferees come back with a bill which is essentially 
budget neutral and does not add to the deficit, we won our point, and I 
think that deserves recognition on our part on the conference report.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, in further response 
to the gentleman, I agree with his points. I would add, though, that 
the administration made a commitment to Jordan that there would be 
three tranches in response to the President's agreement to forgive 
Jordanian debt; that one would be expected to be provided in 1995, one 
in 1996, and one in 1997.
  We are currently dealing with a conference agreement on a 
supplemental and a rescission of 1995 appropriations. We are going to 
deal with another one, another 1995 supplemental and rescission 
conference agreement in the coming weeks. We will deal with this relief 
in that agreement. The fact is that the three tranches for Jordanian 
aid will be dealt with in 1995, not in 1996 or 1997, for the entire 
total balance of the commitment that the President has made to Jordan.
  If that is jerking the administration around, I think they would 
think it is a good way to do it, from their point of view.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], the very hard-working, diligent, and most 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to use all of the time we 
have allocated today. I did want to pay a special tribute to my 
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], because as we 
proceeded with 
[[Page H4351]] this supplemental he was there every step of the way in 
strong support of what we were doing.
  I have to admit, after having served in the minority for so many 
years, to be the chairman of the subcommittee that brought out the 
first appropriation bill of this new Congress was gratifying, and it 
was a partnership effort. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], 
the former chairman of the subcommittee, could not have been a stronger 
supporter, and I think we both felt really good when the subcommittee 
and the full committee agreed to the recommendation we made on how to 
deal with this emergency supplemental. We moved it even ahead of the 
request from the administration, because we recognized the emergency 
and the time element.
  I would also want to say that, in addition to the Members who were so 
helpful and so supportive, I never saw a staff work as many hours, 
attend as many meetings, draw up as many papers and make as many 
comparisons on so many different ideas as I saw in this particular 
exercise. I pay tribute to that staff, because even after we would go 
home at 10 or 11 o'clock at night, they were still here after we left, 
and they were here before we got back the next morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a couple of minutes to say that we 
are facing not just a supplemental issue today but we are facing a real 
concern about the readiness of our forces and the ability to defend our 
national interest.
  For the last 10 years we have experienced a reduction, a reduction in 
the amount of funding made available to our national defense 
establishment for pay for forces, for uniforms, for training, for 
modernization of equipment. We have reduced that budget for the last 10 
years. The budget request that we deal with this year would be the 11th 
reduction.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I have discussed 
this on a number of occasions, we would not be able to do today what we 
did in Desert Storm just a few short years ago, because of the 
tremendous reductions. We have to face up to and recognize that the 
many contingencies that are not planned for, that are not funded, that 
we have to develop some way to deal with these contingencies.
  If the President is going to deploy forces around the world on an 
unplanned contingency, he ought to consult with the Congress of the 
United States, so we can work together not only in devising the plan to 
handle the deployment and the mission, but to determine how we are 
going to pay for it before we get into a crisis situation like we face 
today.
  If we do not pass this supplemental today, the Navy is prepared to 
tie up ships within the next couple of weeks. The Air Force and the 
Navy both are prepared to ground airplanes; not prepared to, they would 
be forced to, because the money for those purposes has already been 
spent for these contingencies.
  Mr. Speaker, one other issue, Haiti. There was a strong difference of 
opinion in this House whether or not we should even have gone to Haiti 
to return Aristide to office. Nevertheless, it happened. Our troops 
performed almost flawlessly. We should be so extremely proud of the way 
that they did perform in Haiti.
  However, Haiti was not a military threat to our Nation, not a 
security threat to our Nation, and the Department of Defense should not 
have to pay the bill for the Haiti operation. It should come from 
another account, whether it is the State Department or the foreign aid 
account. It should not come out of the hide of the national defense 
establishment that is already suffering from 10 years of funding 
reductions.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will pay close attention, because the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, which we now call the Committee on 
National Security, and I have met on many occasions since the beginning 
of this Congress. We have reached an agreement that any projects, any 
items that are going to be authorized in their bill or appropriated by 
our appropriations subcommittee had better have a national defense 
application.
  We are not going to use the national defense budget for a slush fund 
for anyone. We are going to be very careful not to use the national 
defense funding for political projects, whatever they might be. 
Whatever is funded and authorized in this Congress for national defense 
is going to be used for national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], for the stature that he displays in being willing to 
support this legislation today, although he opposed it in the 
beginning. It is somewhat different than it was in the beginning. I 
appreciate all the support from the gentleman from Wisconsin and his 
staff, all of the Members of the House and our subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Department of Defense is facing a 
critical shortfall in its funding for military readiness and training--
because the funds we provided last year for these activities have been 
siphoned off, and used to pay for the large number of contingency 
operations that our Armed Forces have been involved in since last fall. 
Haiti, Bosnia, the Middle East, refugee relief at Guantanamo Bay, 
Korea, Somalia. All these operations, the DOD has been forced to pay 
for out of hide--from funds intended for training and readiness in the 
second half of the current fiscal year.
  The second half of the fiscal year began last Saturday, Mr. Speaker--
and if we do not act to replenish the DOD's accounts, beginning next 
week we will start to see the Pentagon ordering cutbacks in all of the 
military services.
  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that without this 
supplemental, in April they will have to order the Air Force to cut 
flying hours by 25 percent; the Navy will have to cancel scheduled 
maintenance on two aircraft carriers; the Marines will have to cancel 
exercises and cut operating forces budgets by 20 percent; and the Army 
will have to cut tank training 25 percent and scrub preparations for 
exercises at the National Training Center in California.
  That is just what will happen in April. It will get worse as the year 
goes on.
  That is why we have to act--and why we have brought back to the House 
this emergency supplemental for the DOD which, while it is not perfect, 
provides the only way we can avoid what will be a disaster for military 
readiness.
  This bill provides just over $3 billion in readiness funding for the 
military--and it not only covers the costs of the contingency 
operations I just mentioned but also provides money to fully finance 
the military pay raise for 1995, as well as a $250 million shortfall in 
pay accounts for our forces stationed overseas, brought on by the drop 
of the dollar.
  And at the same time we provide this emergency funding, we have more 
than fully offset these costs--by recommending over $3.8 billion worth 
of rescissions and offsets. As a result, even with the funding for the 
DOD, this bill will reduce current budget authority by over $740 
million dollars.
  Now, I have to admit I am not entirely comfortable with having to 
totally offset an emergency supplemental for our military. Our 
committee has never done this before; and we have to realize that 
depending on the type of military actions our forces may have to carry 
out, it may be impossile to totally offset Defense supplementals in the 
future. But in this bill we have done so.
  I must also admit that I am not entirely pleased with how we finally 
offset this bill. After a long and hard negotiation with the other 
body, we ended up agreeing to taking nearly $2.4 billion in rescissions 
out of other Defense accounts--$2.26 billion from programs under the 
National Security subcommittee, and another $100 million from military 
construction. On top of this, $200 million is coming from the defense-
related accounts in the Department of Energy.
  In conference, we were basically asked to rob Peter to pay Paul--take 
money out of other Defense accounts to pay for Defense readiness. We 
did our best to recommend Defense offsets which were less critical, 
less important--but the fact remains, the Defense budget has been cut 
for 10 straight years. There are no easy cuts left. And we had a very 
difficult time settling with the Senate which Defense accounts were 
important, and which ones were not.
  None of this was easy for the House conferees--but we were left with 
no choice. And I want to thank Chairman Vucanovich and Chairman Myers 
for helping with offsets, because without these we could not have 
gotten an agreement before the recess.
  We would not be in this situation if the President would have come to 
the Congress and asked for approval of these operations as well as the 
needed money in advance. With the exception of the deployments to the 
Middle East and Korea, we are not talking about emergency military 
operations here. We are 
[[Page H4352]] talking about peacekeeping, and humanitarian 
operations--things that are not the core mission of the Department of 
Defense.
  That is one thing we were all able to agree upon in our conference--
that the President just cannot keep ordering these operations and then 
expect us to come up with the money afterwards. We just can not keep 
doing this. We will destroy military readiness and other critical 
defense programs. We lay all this out in the statement of managers. And 
I know, based on how all of us in the conference felt--Chairman 
Livingston, Senators Hatfield, Byrd, Stevens, and Inouye; and certainly 
myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha--that if the 
President does not do something to correct this then we will come back 
in the 1996 appropriations bills with some further recommendations of 
our own.
  So, this is not a perfect agreement, but it is one that we have to 
pass. And I want to thank Bob Livingston and the ranking member of our 
subcommittee, Jack Murtha, as well as our Senate counterparts for their 
efforts to bring this emergency bill back to the House before we leave 
this week. This is a good bill, and one that is absolutely essential. I 
urge your support.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make one additional point on the 
Jordan issue, in light of the comments made by the chairman. Let me put 
it this way, Mr. Speaker: I can recall when a previous President, 
President Bush, asked for bipartisan help to see to it that they could 
in fact move events forward in the Middle East by withholding funds for 
the Israel loan guarantee.
  That was not a popular position for President Bush to take in the 
Congress. At that time I supported President Bush strongly, because I 
thought that unless those loan guarantees were held up, we would never 
see a posture on the part of the Israeli Government with respect to the 
settlements issue that was consistent with American foreign policy.
  I would compare that bipartisan support of President Bush with the 
quite different approach taken by the other body, and especially the 
majority party in the other body on the issue of Jordan. We now have 
this President asking for help to again move the peace process forward 
by funding the commitment that the President made to Jordan when they 
agreed to follow along in this round on the peace process. But instead, 
what has happened is that we have had an insistence from the majority 
leader in the other body that funding for Jordan be taken out of this 
bill, where it belongs, and put into what is essentially a domestic 
rescission bill.
  What that will mean is that any Member who votes for that rescission 
bill will be asked to make cuts in domestic programs for kids and for 
seniors in order to fund debt relief for Jordan. I do not think that is 
a very smart thing to do tactically, I do not think that is the right 
thing to do substantively. It seems to me if we are going to provide 
that action for Jordan, that it belongs in this bill and it should be 
offset in this bill, because I am tired of seeing this Government make 
foreign policy decisions that wind up having domestic consequences that 
are negative for our constituents.
  Another example would be, for instance, the situation which we find 
ourselves in with respect to refugees, where the Federal Government 
will make agreements allowing refugees into this country, and then they 
will walk away from the obligation to support the financing of those 
refugees, and turn the obligation for that over to State and local 
governments.
  I do not think that is legitimate. I think foreign policy issues 
should be dealt with in foreign policy bills. That is why Jordan 
belongs in this bill. That is why Jordan belongs in this bill, not the 
other bill.
  However, I find it quaint that the administration asked a bipartisan 
group of people to go up to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue twice 
on last Thursday to talk about the necessity to keep Jordan funding in 
this bill, rather than moving it over to the other bill, and then we 
find out that without any notice whatsoever to anybody on this side of 
the Capitol, the administration decides, after all, they are going to 
acquiesce in putting it in the other bill.
  That is why I say that the administration apparently does not mind 
being jerked around. I do. It seems to me the next time the 
administration asks someone in the Congress to defend their position on 
a foreign policy issue in the Congress, it would be nice to know that 
we could find the administration where they were the last time we 
talked to them.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I will let the gentleman's comments 
stand where they are, and I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the distinguished chairwoman 
of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak regarding the conference agreement on 
Senate amendment numbered 5, the Military Construction Subcommittee's 
portion of the bill H.R. 889, as well as action to date on the bill 
H.R. 1158.
  As these two bills proceeded through the House, no rescissions were 
proposed for military construction.
  The Senate took an opposing view. On H.R. 889, the Senate imposed a 
contingent rescission based on the current round of base closure, and 
this contingent rescission may have reached a total of $150 million. On 
H.R. 1158, the Senate imposed additional rescissions totaling $230.8 
million. In the House view, these rescissions were ill-advised and 
unnecessary at this time.
  In conference action on H.R. 889, the House very reluctantly agreed 
to rescissions totaling $100.6 million, and these specific rescissions 
are explained in detail in the statement of the managers accompanying 
the conference report. More importantly, the conferees agreed that all 
rescissions proposed by the Senate in both bills would be addressed in 
the conference agreement on the bill H.R. 889. Therefore, no 
rescissions will be recommended for military construction in final 
action on H.R. 1158.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the Members' attention a title that 
is a part of this Defense supplemental bill, title IV, entitled ``The 
Mexican Debt Disclosure Act of 1995,'' a measure that was attached in 
the Senate and then agreed to by the conferees.
  Let me mention also, Mr. Speaker, that as the ranking member on our 
side has indicated, it has been very difficult to get the $3.1 billion 
identified in the overall defense supplemental bill to take care of 
costs for Haiti, for Bosnia, for Somalia. I might mention $3.1 billion.
  Title IV, which deals with Mexico, talks about $20 billion. Of 
course, that is money that has not been voted on by the Members of this 
body, because we have not been permitted a vote by our own leadership. 
We have been thwarted at every turn.
  Now we are faced with a vote on a defense supplemental that has a 
title that pushes us a little bit further toward getting some 
additional information from the Clinton administration. I have to say 
that it is a step in the right direction, but it is certainly not what 
we have been asking for in this body.

                              {time}  1130

  A little recent history here. Members will remember that we were 
ruled against, those of us who wanted a clean vote on the question of 
whether we should be appropriating dollars to support the bailout in 
Mexico. The Speaker ruled against us. We were not allowed an open 
debate a few weeks ago. Then there was a vote in the Republican 
conference about a week ago, 2 to 1 against getting a vote here, a 
clean vote on the floor on the question of these credits and loan 
guarantees being extended to Mexico. Now the only item we were able to 
get passed was a resolution that had broad bipartisan support here, 
House Resolution 80, which we had to use a special procedure to 
disgorge it from committee and it essentially only asked the 
administration for information which was supposed to be here by March 
15 and which is not here. Only parts of it are here.
  Now the cleanest measure that we could get on this floor is not this 
title 
[[Page H4353]] IV of this bill but rather Discharge Petition 2 which 
sits at the desk there that would allow us a clean vote on the issue of 
how many dollars if any should be extended further to Mexico to help 
bail out that tragic situation down there.
  I want to point out to the Members, this title does exist in this 
bill. It is a serious title. Essentially what it says is that no money, 
loan credit guarantee or arrangement through the Exchange Stabilization 
Fund at the Treasury or the Federal Reserve can be extended unless the 
President of the United States has provided us with every single 
document that we have asked for in our resolution of inquiry.
  I can say based on the research we have done in our office, again 
this information was to have been here by March 15. There are big holes 
in what the administration has failed to tell us, including the 
conditions that were placed on the bailout by members of the investment 
community, the relationships to the Bank for International Settlement 
and the other international funds involved in this bailout, and private 
phone conversation notes between the Government of the United States 
and Mexico.
  I just have to say that this is another weak attempt to try to get 
some vote here in the Congress on a massive amount of money that is 
being extended by the people of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is not comfortable to be a Member 
of this body and not be allowed a full debate on a matter that is 7 
times as large as the base dollar funding in this defense supplemental. 
This has been an insiders' deal from the beginning. I think that the 
Members should read the language of title IV carefully. We have a right 
to debate this amount of money going to another country. We are tied in 
knots over $3.1 billion of money that needs to be paid to restore the 
amount in our readiness accounts. Why is it so difficult to get a full 
debate in the Congress of the United States when we have a new form of 
back-door foreign assistance that has been allowed to Mexico setting an 
incredible precedent that we will have to account for later?
  I just have to say that this amendment that was added to this bill 
gets us to maybe second base but it does not get us the full and open 
debate and the kind of oversight that we need in this body on the 
amount of money that is now being extended to not just back up the 
Government of Mexico but the Mexican banking system. This is extremely 
serious. Title IV, an important step perhaps, gets us to second base, 
not the home run that we really need in order to gain proper oversight 
over this massive expenditure of our tax dollars.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to 
the gentlewoman and say that had it not been for the Appropriations 
Committee, the gentlewoman would not have an opportunity to discuss 
this issue at all. We have developed a compromise with the Senate on 
this bill. We have compelled the White House to provide documentation 
which has not been forthcoming to date despite a resolution passed by 
this House on March 1. We are doing our best to get to the bottom of 
the issue and try to provide as much light on the decision process on 
the issue of providing aid to Mexico as we possibly can. This is a good 
first step. There may be others. The gentlewoman should in fact be 
pleased that we have gone as far as we have.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for three 
questions?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. To the extent I have any more time on the minute, I 
would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would just ask the gentleman, is it the gentleman's 
understanding that in title IV that if passed it certifies that the 
President--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether if we vote for this, we 
assure ourselves that until the President certifies that without 
exception every requested document has been turned over to Congress, 
all further Mexican bailout funds through the ESF, the Federal Reserve 
Board or any other fund with which the United States is associated in 
the pipeline are halted.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield, I would say that 
certainly the White House counsel is going to be examining this 
provision carefully, but it is the gentleman's understanding that from 
the point of passage of the bill that the White House, or that the 
administration has 10 days to sign the bill. If in fact they have not 
provided the documentation at the end of the 10 days, there will be a 
period of time during which there shall be no Mexican assistance. 
However, if the documentation is provided prior to that time, then 
there is no lapse at all.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think the 
gentleman the chairman is correct with one possible exception. I want 
to make sure this is well understood. After the President signs the 
bill, the time starts. Then the requirement starts. Not after we pass 
it here in the House. It is after the President signs it, I believe, 
which could be as late as the 24th or 25th of this month.
  Ms. KAPTUR. This leads to my second question. Then it is my 
understanding that under the legislation the President would not have 
to provide the documentation until the last day of the first month 
after which this legislation is passed, which would mean the end of 
May; is that correct?
  During which time billions more could flow out of that fund. Am I 
correct in my understanding?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield to me, that is not my 
understanding. I think that the time limits are much shorter than that.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Regarding the certification, it said the funds 
stop unless and until the President submits the appropriate documents. 
Until we get the certification, the money is cut off, so it would be 
around the 24th or 25th of this month.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest that I do not think it is 
particularly constructive for individual Members of Congress to try to 
write a record of legislative intent when in fact the record that is 
being written is probably not accurate nor legitimate.
  I do not believe, for instance, that any Member of the House who is 
not a member of the conference can really assure the House about 
anything with respect to what that language means. I certainly do not 
necessarily subscribe to the interpretation of the gentleman from 
Indiana since he was not a member of the conference and cannot possibly 
have an understanding of what the agreement was that was reached by 
persons who were in the room.
  Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would be kind enough to yield, I would 
just like to read into the Record the actual language in title IV which 
says that the reports will be provided beginning on the last day of the 
first month which begins after the date of enactment, which would be 
the end of May.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], a member of the Committee 
on National Security.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the last speakers, that many of us on this 
side of the aisle agree that when he talked about Jordan, King Hussein, 
we all witnessed the King up here with good intentions, but he, in 
fact, does not have control of Jordan and with the Palestinians, this 
Member personally feels that we are dumping money down a rat hole.
  I think we have also taken a look and many Members on this side of 
the aisle want an up-or-down vote on Mexico, the bailout. I think that 
it is going to be a problem. I do not know what the deal is with the 
support of President Clinton on the issue, but many of us would like to 
halt the money going to Mexico, because I think again it is money going 
down a rat hole.
  I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that when 
we are 
[[Page H4354]] looking at a balanced budget and we are sending money to 
Mexico, we are sending money to Jordan and we have domestic problems 
here in this country and we also have military readiness problems, that 
we have got to change our modus operandi on both sides of the aisle and 
the administration as well.
  But why is this particular issue that we are talking about today 
important? Military readiness, and I quote from testimony in the 
Committee on National Security, that we are near buffet condition when 
it comes to national security, and near buffet is the condition in 
which an airplane goes into an out-of-control spin. That condition has 
been created much because of the operations of this body. Our op tempo 
today, operation tempo, is higher than it was during Desert Storm or 
Vietnam. But yet our military has had dollars cut out of it not only in 
a $177 billion defense cut but from not funding BRAC, from all the 
operations that were in Somalia, Haiti, and so on.
  In Somalia, we testified, when there was an extension of Somalia that 
it was going to cost billions of dollars, and that was going to come 
out of military readiness, time and training.
  This is an attempt to get a little portion of that money back. In the 
meantime, we have gone a year and a half without allotting the training 
in the military. I just got through with a briefing of the military. 
Our F-18's, C-10's, our F-15's, our AWACS in Bosnia and these other 
expenditures are killing the flight time left on those airframes. At 
the same time, we have air wings back in the States that are not 
flying. Top Gun did not fly against its class because it did not have 
enough fuel or parts because of the Somalia, the Haiti, the Bosnia 
expeditions. This is critical.
  If we take a look at the extension of Somalia, we said it was going 
to cost billions of dollars. Then if we take a look at the retreat from 
Somalia that we just went through, General Aideed is still there, and 
it cost us over 100 Rangers that were killed in Somalia at great cost 
to this country. When we talk about domestic programs, when we talk 
about military readiness, it was not Members on this side of the aisle 
that made the decision to extend Somalia that cost lives and billions 
of dollars.
  Haiti is another case. We put into position a madman in Haiti. I ask 
the Speaker, if we pulled out of Haiti today, what would be the 
condition? Do Members remember Papa Doc and Baby Doc? It would be a 
total turmoil there. That has cost us billions of dollars. We are 
paying for those military forces, military, the United States is. That 
is wrong, against our own military defense. Again, when we pull out of 
there, it is going to go back just like it has, and we could have left 
it there for another 100 years and it would not have been a national 
security.
  The President is saying, what a great victory. Pull out of there and 
see what kind of victory we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a look at the different costs. 
There are many on the other side of the aisle that would depreciate our 
readiness and our capability in national defense and our military. But 
we are asking our men and women to put their lives on the line. 
Readiness is not just machines. Readiness is not just going out and 
turning and burning in a jet or in the ground on a tank. It is the 
families that are involved. We ask these high up-tempo operations at a 
cost of family separation, and the No. 1 indicator of our men and women 
leaving the service is family separation. That is part of readiness as 
well. We need to get a grip on this.
  I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to support this 
supplemental, because if we do not get it, and I quote, our military 
will shut down at the end of this fiscal year.
                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me just say that the gentlewoman who has worked so hard on the 
Mexican issue is to be commended, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], subcommittee chairman, should be commended, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the 
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for putting language in here that 
at least gives the Congress an opportunity to get information on the 
Mexican bailout.
  But as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, we still are not going to have 
a vote on the ultimate $52 billion that is going to go to Mexico, 
$52,000 million that is going to Mexico without a vote by the people's 
House on their tax dollars.
  So far it was reported in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that of the 
first $5 billion, $5,000 million, that was sent to Mexico, $4 billion, 
$4,000 million, was used to pay off American insurance companies, 
mutual fund investors, Wall Street brokerage houses, Mexican banks, and 
the richest of Mexico's rich, these people that bought their tesobonos, 
their bonds, down there, and that is not what we were sending the money 
down there for in the first place.
  It is really a tragedy our tax dollars are being used to pay off 
these people who invested in Mexico knowing the risks. We are bailing 
out the big investors who took the risks, and now they are being repaid 
even though they should have taken the loss like anybody else that 
invests in financial instruments.
  Now, this legislation does head in the right direction. It is a step 
in the right direction. The President is going to have to certify to 
the Congress what this money is being spent for, where it is going. 
They do not particularly like that at the White House, but, 
nevertheless, they are going to have to do it, otherwise additional 
tranches of money are not going to go to Mexico.
  That still begs the issue. Should we be sending this money down there 
in the first place? Anyone who is following the financial markets knows 
the dollar has been dropping like a rock. It is at the lowest levels 
against the Japanese yen in decades, and in large part, if you talk to 
many economists, you will find that is due to the Mexican bailout that 
has been taking place unilaterally by the executive branch of 
Government.
  This Congress was going to vote on it. We had a proposal that would 
protect the American taxpayer. We could not get Mexico to go along with 
the provisions. We could not get the White House to go along with the 
provisions. They decided to use the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which 
has never been used for that purpose before to my knowledge. There are 
some people that question the legality of it.
  As a result, the peso has continued to drop. It finally stabilized at 
half of what it was worth. The dollar continues to drop.
  We are responsible for the taxpayers' dollar. Even though the 
Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for at least putting 
this language in the legislation, it does not go far enough. We 
ultimately need an up-or-down vote on whether we should continue to 
send billions of United States taxpayers' dollars, billions of United 
States taxpayers' dollars to Mexico without any guarantees it is going 
to be repaid. That money right now is going down a rat hole.
  Of the first $12 billion that has gone down there, $11 billion of it 
is gone. They have only increased their reserves by $1 billion. We 
still need an up-or-down vote on this entire issue.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, who did an 
outstanding job in the conference.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on the supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I am pleased to report that we 
have participated in the effort to offset the defense spending in this 
bill by reducing foreign aid spending by $142 million. In addition, we 
have reallocated $15 million from the Russian Officer Housing 
[[Page H4355]] Program, a program I have strongly opposed, to other 
economic assistance in the New Independent States. However, these funds 
would not be available to Russia.
  These reductions are a downpayment on the cuts that will be necessary 
in fiscal year 1996. In addition, we will be looking at further 
reductions in the second rescission bill that is currently pending in 
the Senate.
  In addition, while we have not provided debt relief for Jordan in 
this conference agreement, we have pledged to address this issue in the 
second rescission bill as well. We committed ourselves to meeting the 
parameters of the agreement between the administration and Jordan in 
support of the October 1994 peace agreement. The President believes 
this debt relief is in the national security interest of the United 
States, and we will make every effort to provide the full amount for 
debt relief in the next rescission bill.
  I would just like to say a few words about the agreement on Mexican 
debt relief. The agreement we have reached with the Senate requires the 
President to provide the information on the Mexican debt crisis called 
for in House Resolution 80. This resolution passed the House by an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority of 407 to 21. If you voted for that 
resolution, you should support this agreement.
  The bill language does not cut off aid to Mexico. It does, however, 
require the President to provide the information requested in House 
Resolution 80, prior to the extension of additional aid to Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this conference agreement to provide 
needed additional funds for our national security, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed with the gentleman's remarks.
  I would only say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an outstanding 
compromise with the other body.
  It meets the emergency needs of our young people in uniform in the 
armed services. It requires documentation from the White House on the 
Mexican affair, and it is a good bill.
  I urge adoption of H.R. 889.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 889, the defense supplemental bill. However, I do so 
with strong reservations. The conference agreement rescinds a net total 
of $746 million in fiscal year 1995 and prior years appropriations in 
order to fund emergency defense and Coast Guard needs and to make 
additional offsetting reductions.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the emergency supplemental appropriations that 
are required to restore funds spent by the Department of Defense and 
the Coast Guard in unanticipated peacekeeping operations. In 
particular, the conference agreement provides the $28.3 million 
requested by the President to reimburse the Coast Guard for operating 
expenses associated with extraordinary Caribbean regional activities. I 
am concerned that the conference committee did not fully fund the 
supplemental request for the operation and maintenance accounts, the 
backbone of our Armed Forces.
  I also have strong reservations about the $223 million rescission 
included in the DOD-related section of this bill for the Technology 
Reinvestment Program [(TRP]. A program such as the TRP is very 
important to our national security interests. I, and others, feel that 
the TRP is vitally necessary to our country's future as we position 
ourselves strategically in the post-Cold War era. The President, 
Secretary of Defense Perry, Office of Management and Budget Director 
Rivlin and Fortune 500 corporations oppose the rescission of these 
funds, which would ensure that commercial firms in this country supply 
the superior technologies needed to maintain our military advantage.
  In addition, I do not support the $775 million rescinded in the bill 
for important domestic programs. Mr. Speaker, in particular, I take 
exception to the rescissions of $200 million slated for cutting 
critical employment and training programs for our Nation's youth, and 
$100 million to be taken out of programs for our Nation's school 
children and college students. I am also concerned about the rescission 
of $6.6 million from the Local Rail Freight Assistance [LRFA] Program, 
which has a major, beneficial impact on the economy of smaller 
communities, small businesses and job creation.
  In summary, I believe the result of the conference agreement on H.R. 
889, while flawed, should be passed so that military readiness is not 
impaired. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 343, 
nays 80, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 296]

                               YEAS--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--80

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     [[Page H4356]] Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Klug
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burton
     Chapman
     Dickey
     Frost
     Hinchey
     Kasich
     McIntosh
     Moran
     Reynolds
     Scarborough
     Waxman

                              {time}  1213

  Mr. WYNN, Mr. CLYBURN, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. MINK of 
Hawaii, and Messrs. COYNE, WISE, MOAKLEY, THOMPSON, and FIELDS of 
Louisiana changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________