[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.''

                          ____________________