[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4454-H4457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making
rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
[[Page H4455]] There was no objection.
motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House,
at the conference on the disagreeing vote of the two Houses
on H.R. 1158, be instructed to agree to the the Senate
amendment numbered 1 except for Senate action under title IV
deleting the ``Deficit Reduction Lock-Box'', Senate language
rescinding $100,000,000 from Veterans Administration medical
care and construction and except for Senate action under
chapter IV related to ``Debt Relief for Jordan''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me simply say that the new Republican leadership in the House has
forced us to carefully take a look at a number of spending items and
take a look at a lot of programs that needed reducing. That is good.
But if other Members heard what I did in my district the last 3
weeks, the public is concerned that in some cases this House is going
too fast and going too far. They are concerned that while they voted
Republican in the last election, they are worried that this body is
producing legislation which is too extreme, that it is doing things
that are not well-advised, not well thought out, and not fairly
targeted.
I know that a lot of my Republican colleagues have responded by
saying that they favor a more moderate course, and that they expect
that the Senate will modify much of what the House has done to make it
more moderate.
{time} 1200
This motion would give those colleagues a chance to put their votes
where their words are, by supporting not a Democratic solution, but a
modern Republican solution to the rescissions issues before us,
moderate Republican position fashioned in the Senate that both parties
can work from.
I think the problem with the House bill is, as it left the House,
well, there are a number of problems. First of all, as the bill left
the House, despite the fact that it contained the Brewster amendment,
which required that the dollars which are saved be used for deficit
reduction, the House Republican leadership nonetheless said these cuts
would be used to help finance their tax bill. That tax bill, among
other things, provides benefits for people making up to $200,000 a
year, and it finances those tax reductions by eliminating help that we
give low-income seniors to pay their home heating bills, and it also
pays for those tax reductions for people making $199,000 a year by
cutting back on investments on our kids' education and training.
That tax bill would also take us back to the good old days during
which 47 of the largest corporations
in this country paid not one dime in Federal taxes despite the fact
that they made millions of dollars in profits. The House Republican
leadership also insisted on continuing to allow the provision in the
tax code which allows billionaires to escape taxation by renouncing
their American citizenship.
This motion simply suggests that we accept the Senate priorities in
the conference with roughly three exceptions. First, we would require
that the conference stick to the Brewster amendment, which requires
every dollar in this package to be used for deficit reduction rather
than being used for another purpose.
Second, it would say absolutely no way will be accept the $100
million reduction in veterans' health care benefits which the Senate
provided. We would insist on fully funding those programs.
And, third, this proposal would not buy into automatically the Senate
provision of aid to Jordan. We would leave that issue up to the
conference.
In essence, the Senate bill, fashioned in a bipartisan way, in a
Republican-controlled body, is harder, much harder on pork than was the
bill that left the House, and it is much kinder and gentler on kids and
seniors.
So in essence I would simply say this: The bottom line on this motion
to instruct is simple. If Members do not want to guarantee true deficit
reduction through the Brewster lockbox, vote against it. If Members do
not want to protect veterans' programs, vote against it. If they want
to cut kids and seniors instead of pork, vote against it. But if
Members think that we ought to do those three things, then join us in
being tougher on pork and easier on seniors and kids. Join us in
supporting and insisting that we fully fund veterans' health programs,
and most of all, join us in insisting that every dime of budget cuts
that are produced in conference actually will go to deficit reduction
rather than going to finance that turkey of a tax bill which the House
passed just before we recessed.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully rise to oppose the gentleman's motion. I
am concerned that the gentleman seems to overlook the fact that this
House spent 2 days debating this rescissions bill and then passed it.
The House version of this bill provides for the American taxpayer
roughly $12 billion in savings in 1995 appropriations by making $17
billion in cuts and $5.3 billion in additional spending for disaster
assistance, $50 million for Jordanian relief, and miscellaneous items
totaling an additional reduction of $361 million.
The point is that the House had an opportunity to debate the issues
extensively. We voted on any number of amendments to the bill, and the
bill ended up passing with relative ease, expressing the House's point
of view that the rescission bill was a good one.
We heard arguments from the minority saying it doesn't do any good to
take this bill up in committee because after all, it will never pass
the House. Then when we got it passed through the House, and then the
arguments were of course it doesn't do any good to pass the House
because the Senate will not take it up. Now of course the bill is
passed in substantial conformance to the House's measure, and the
argument is well, it doesn't do any good to send it to conference
because the President will not sign it.
But a conference is based on compromise between this body and the
other one. What the gentleman proposes is no compromise; it is a total
abdication of what we passed in the House. The motion to instruct
basically recommends that we recede on virtually every issue and every
position taken by the Senate with the exception of the lockbox, the VA
rescission, and the Jordanian aid.
My view of a compromise is not simply to throw up our hands after we
have done the lion's share of the work and say OK, the other body came
in relatively well, but they did it differently from us, so we will
just take their position. No. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the House
would be better represented if we would reject the gentleman's motion
and in fact just stick to our guns and reach a genuine compromise with
the other body.
The fact is, that it is ironic that the very three things that the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
exempts are three likely areas where we would look favorably on the
Senate position. So we may end up getting some agreement on the very
things he does not want us to agree with them on.
But let the House do its work. Let us go ahead and name the
conferees, go to conference, let the conference pound out the
differences between both positions in the House and the Senate, not tie
its hands, not bind it in any significant degree, not adopt the
gentleman's motion. Let's find out what the conference can produce, and
presumably I think that what we will find is that what it does produce
will be passable in both the House and the Senate, and ultimately will
be signed by the President of the United States because, in fact, what
we will do jointly with the other body is going to be a very good bill,
and it is going to mean that the American taxpayer, for the first time
in many many years, is going to reap a savings of anywhere from $8
billion to $12 billion of prior years appropriations, which I think is
terribly significant.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
[[Page H4456]] Mr. Speaker, I take this time only to say that I am
somewhat startled by the comment I just heard from my good friend from
Louisiana. He indicated that the House would be most likely to accept
the three Senate provisions that I have indicated we would not insist
on supporting. Did the gentleman really mean that we are inclined to
accept a $100 million reduction in appropriations for veterans' health
care? Did he really mean that the House is inclined to accept the
Senate language which guts the Brewster amendment which attempts to
guarantee that the money would be used for deficit reduction rather
than used to finance the tax package?
If that is the case, then I think the gentleman outlines most clearly
why we do need to support and vote for this recommittal motion, because
I know very few Members certainly on this side of the aisle who would
be comfortable with admitting ahead of time that they want the House to
acquiesce in the Senate gutting of the Brewster amendment. And I
certainly do not think I would, and for instance acquiesce in the
reductions that were made in veterans' health care. So I think that
outlines all the more reason to support the recommittal motion.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I am prepared to let the
conference work its will on all of these issues without prejudging it.
I was using the statements that the gentleman referred to simply as
examples of where we could possibly end up, but the fact is, please do
not bind or prejudge the outcome of this conference at all. We are
going to have a lot of good Members who are going to be participating
in this conference, and they have all got individual views on how the
conference should come out.
I was very, very, pleased by the product of the conference between
the House and the Senate on the last rescission bill when we provided
the military with $3 billion in additional funds for their readiness
shortfall, and at the same time paid for that readiness shortfall with
rescissions that were half out of defense and half out of nondefense
appropriations. So we have done a good job already. We have a track
record established by the last conference, and I think that all
indications are that we can have a very fruitful and successful
conference hopefully that will not take too extremely long and come
back to the House with something that a majority, and I stress a
majority of the Members, hopefully a good, sizable combination of both
Republicans and Democrats can indeed support.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will take just 1 minute, and then I am happy to yield
back. I would simply say that I think we need to understand that what
the Senate was able to do under moderate Republican leadership, what
the Senate was able to do, is to reduce the cuts that were made in
programs to seniors and programs for kids by making deeper reductions
in pork items in the budget. It seems to me that moderate Republicans
in the Senate have demonstrated they can produce a more civilized and
more balanced bill and we ought to go along with that, with the
exception of the three items I have laid out.
And so I would urge adoption of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker I oppose the gentleman's amendment and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187,
nays 207, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 303]
YEAS--187
Abercrombie
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--207
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--40
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barton
Becerra
Bilirakis
Browder
Buyer
Clay
Conyers
Cramer
Dellums
[[Page H4457]] Diaz-Balart
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Geren
Green
Greenwood
Hilliard
Jacobs
Laughlin
Linder
Martinez
Menendez
Metcalf
Moakley
Ney
Owens
Parker
Payne (NJ)
Pombo
Quinn
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Saxton
Thompson
Tucker
Waldholtz
Wise
{time} 1230
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Barton against.
Mr. BONO and Mr. COOLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PASTOR, CONDIT, and EVERETT changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 303, I am
inadvertently recorded as an ``aye'' vote, and I should have been
recorded as a ``no.'' So I would like to have that noted for the
Record.
personal explanation
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 303 due to an
inoperative light calling us to vote. Had I been here, I would have
voted ``nay.''
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably
detained in flying back to Washington from Houston and missed rollcall
vote No. 303. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________