[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6583-H6594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 67, CONCURRENT 
            RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEARS 1996-2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 
5 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  (Mr. MORAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H 6584]]

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report and would point out that this budget resolution will inflict a 
brutal blow on Federal employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the 
budget resolution because of the cuts it imposes on our Nation's 
Federal employees.
  The budget resolution increases the contributions that Federal 
employees pay into their retirement system. The Republicans have 
pledged to make the Federal Government work more like the private 
sector. But in the private sector, 97 percent of all medium and large 
companies fully finance their employees' pension plan. Federal employee 
contributions to their retirement system are among the highest in the 
Nation. The resolution increases those contributions.
  For their increased contributions to their pension plans, Federal 
employees will receive less. The Congressional Research Service has 
already estimated that Federal pensions are less generous than 
comparable private sector pension. We are going to make these pensions 
even worse by changing the accrual formula from high three to high 
five. This will reduce the Federal annuity by 4 percent. Republicans 
talk about the need to operate the Federal retirement system like a 
private pension plan. But this change would be illegal in the private 
sector.
  Finally, the Republicans are proposing draconian cuts in the 
operation of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The budget 
resolution proposes to cap the government investment at $1,535 for 
individuals and $3,430 for families. This cap grows with inflation over 
the next 7 years. While this sounds reasonable, this proposal will have 
serious consequences for the average Federal employee and his family. 
As we all know, health care inflation is much higher than changes in 
the Consumer Price Index. As time goes by, the employees out of pocket 
expenses will grow. By the year 2000, the average Federal employee will 
be losing $500 per year. The senior citizen on the plan will be facing 
even worse consequences because the Medicare cuts proposed in this 
resolution will force up the costs of the Federal Health Plan. Those 
individuals living on a fixed income will be forced to either pay a 
greater share of their income on health care or change to a program 
that does not meet their needs.
  The Republicans talk about making contracts and keeping promises. But 
this is only talk. When it comes down to action, the Republicans are 
breaking their promises and violating the contracts we have with our 
Nation's Federal employees. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
budget resolution.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and 
share the views of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Republican's budget conference report which will have a devastating 
effect on my constituents and all America.
  Last Monday, I held a townhall meeting on the budget cuts in 
Jacksonville, FL. Mr. Speaker, I had so many people show up that I had 
to turn busloads away. The people are very concerned about how these 
severe budget cuts will affect themselves, their parents, and their 
children.
  Our seniors, who rely so heavily on Medicare and Medicaid will be 
especially hard hit. Medicare and Medicaid will be reduced to second-
rate health care systems so the Republicans can pay for the crown jewel 
of the Republican Contract on America, a multibillion-dollar tax cut 
for the wealthy.
  In my State of Florida alone, Medicare will be cut by $29 billion by 
the year 2002, and Medicaid will be slashed by $9.2 billion. By the 
year 2002, seniors will pay $1,060 more in out-of-pocket expenses for 
second-rate Medicare.
  In addition to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, this mean-spirited 
budget cuts education $10 billion. It also cuts veterans' programs by 
$32 billion over the next 7 years. This is truly a case of the haves 
taking from the have-nots.
  Mr. Speaker, we have not only let the fox guard the hen house--we 
have let the fox take charge.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and to delineate 
for my colleagues the specific impacts this budget resolution is likely 
to have on the Federal Aviation Administration.
  I say, is likely to have, because the conference report does not 
spell out the details of the cuts proposed for the FAA budget; but, 
given the general numbers and spending targets set down in the budget 
agreement we can calculate what the effects will be on specific FAA 
programs, such as the agency's new zero accident goal.
  As ranking member of the House Aviation Subcommittee I want all my 
House colleagues to understand the critical mission of the FAA. This 
agency manages the world's largest air traffic control system, through 
which move half of all the one billion passengers who travel world-wide 
every year by air. They operate the Air Traffic Control system 24 hours 
a day, 365 days a year, handling, on average, two flights every second.
  On an average day, FAA safety and security professionals will conduct 
nearly 1,000 inspections on pilots, planes and airports, ensuring that 
they remain air worthy and safe.
  FAA maintains over 30,000 pieces of complex safety equipment and 
facilities across this Nation, operating at a reliability factor of 
99.4 percent--a safety record envied by the rest of the world.
  FAA issues more than 1,000 airport grants annually to improve airport 
safety and infrastructure.
  FAA conducts 355,000 inspections annually to enforce safety standards 
and to issue certificates and licenses for aviation products and 
operators. FAA takes more than 12,000 enforcement actions each year.
  The FAA has taken its share of cuts in the last 2 years as its 
contribution toward deficit reduction: FAA has cut 5,000 employees 
since 1993 for a current total of 48,000 total employees. Of that 
number 36,000 have direct hands-on involvement in the ATC system, which 
includes 14 of the 15 busiest airports in the world.
  In this era of deregulation with extraordinary growth in both 
passengers and air traffic operations, we have seen a growth of 6 
percent in air traffic during the last 2 years as the airlines have 
recovered from the serious economic decline and $12 billion in losses 
of 1990-92. But while air traffic has jumped 6 percent these last 2 
years, the FAA budget has suffered a real decline of 6 percent, which 
translates into a $600 million cut.
  This budget resolution conference agreement chops an additional $10 
billion from transportation spending, which if spread, as expected, to 
the FAA will jeopardize the safety and efficiency of the Nation's 
aviation system.
  Under this budget resolution FAA's ability to improve weather and 
safety equipment and prevent accidents would be compromised.
  Introduction of global positioning satellite navigation technology 
would be delayed at least 5 years, costing airlines millions of dollars 
a year in lost efficiency.
  The ability of the aviation security system to maintain its vigilance 
against domestic and international terrorism would be cut by one-third.
  FAA's obligation to certify new aircraft engines and parts would be 
greatly compromised and might even have to be contracted out to private 
interests which, in my judgment, clearly is not in the best interest of 
safety.
  The weather services to general aviation and to commercial aviation 
provided through the Nation's flight service stations would be greatly 
impaired as FSS and control towers would be closed, costing jobs and 
air traffic services to hundreds of communities in all 50 States, and 
delays to an estimated 105,000 flights annually, at an estimated costs 
to carriers and passengers of more than $2.3 billion.
  I am just touching the tip of the iceberg on the impact of these cuts 
projected out over the next several years for the FAA as a result of 
this budget resolution.
  The dedicated professionals of the FAA deserve better. They deserve 
our full support for full funding out of the aviation trust fund to 
maintain our air traffic control system at its highest level of safety 
and efficiency.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H 6585]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this bill that devastates 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition 
to House Concurrent Resolution 67, the fiscal year 1996 budget 
resolution. This bill was terrible when it passed the House in May and 
it is just as awful today.
  What you will hear about this budget resolution is that it balances 
the budget by the year 2002. Clearly, this is an important and 
extremely worthy goal. What you will not hear about is how it balances 
the budget--on the backs of senior citizens, college students, the 
working poor, and children with mothers and fathers on welfare. Rather 
than cutting the bloated defense budget, or ending corporate welfare, 
House Concurrent Resolution 67 attacks Medicare, guaranteed student 
loans, the earned income tax credit, public transportation, and lunches 
for school children to bear the brunt of the budget hatchet.
  Today, you will also hear about how responsible this budget is. 
You'll hear many Members congratulating each other for addressing the 
budget deficit responsibly. Well, if this were true, we could all be 
proud of the budget before us today. Unfortunately, House Concurrent 
Resolution 67 is extremely irresponsible. It provides a $245 billion 
tax cut to Americans who least need it at a time when we can least 
afford it. In order to fund this tax cut and balance the budget, House 
Concurrent Resolution 67 cuts critical Federal investments in the 
future of this country.
  Let's look at exactly what this budget resolution proposes and who 
will be hurt by it. House Concurrent Resolution 67 cuts Medicare 
spending by $270 billion over the next 7 years. Judging from the 
letters and calls that have been pouring into my office about Medicare 
funding, this is not a cut that the senior citizens in my congressional 
district can afford. Higher out-of-pocket costs for Medicare benefits 
will be devastating to many 7th Congressional District senior citizens 
on fixed incomes.
  This budget also cuts funding for student aid by $10 billion over the 
next years. How the budget cutters decided that it is responsible and 
sensible to cut opportunities for young people to attend college is 
completely unclear to me. These cuts will prevent even more young 
people from attending college in the years ahead. Already, many 
families in my congressional district cannot afford to send their 
children to college. Other families take out large student loans that 
their children must pay back of a 10-year period.
  Federal TRIO programs have helped approximately 9 million young 
people complete high school or graduate from college since they were 
established. It is likely that these programs may be completely 
eliminated, leaving first-generation college students without the 
support and assistance needed to help them obtain their college degree.
  In addition, this budget proposes that we cut community development 
block grants [CDBG's] by nearly 30 percent. Last year, my State of 
Illinois received $42,500,000 that was distributed to community 
development organizations across the 7th Congressional District and 
throughout the State to help create jobs, rehabilitate single family 
housing units, improve infrastructure and reduce threats to public 
health and safety, et cetera. A 30-percent cut will dramatically reduce 
the important work that CDBG's can do.
  House Concurrent Resolution 67 also proposes making other cuts that 
could impact the future of our economy and work force. It cuts job 
training program funding by 20 percent and would completely eliminate 
the Department of Commerce. During the past 2 years, the Department of 
Commerce has helped the private sector create jobs through export 
promotion and programs like the manufacturer's extension partnership. 
As the Illinois District Export Council in Illinois indicated in a 
latter to me, ``Part of America's future is in exporting. Export 
promotion programs not only create jobs and strengthens communities 
today, but they lay the foundation for strong, competitive, U.S. 
companies and jobs into the next century.'' Does it make sense to 
disarm ourselves when we most need to compete in global workplace?
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 67 also reduces funding for 
grants for energy conservation programs, phases out Federal funding for 
mass transit, and proposes a number of other short-sighted, 
irresponsible cuts.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this foolish budget proposal. It will 
give America's richest and wealthiest citizens all the breaks and leave 
America's most vulnerable citizens with nothing. This, Mr. Speaker, is 
certainly not responsible and it is definitely nothing to be proud of.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  (Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
committee report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this conference report 
for two very simple and understandable reasons. I believe this 
conference report and this budget is extreme. I do not believe that we 
have to, in order to balance the budget, take the kind of actions that 
are being taken in this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I also believe that it is a budget that is unfair and I 
say that for one simple reason above others. If you take the tax break 
that is in this budget, it comes to about $245 billion over the period 
of years. If you take the Medicare cut, it is a little more than that; 
about $270 billion.
  As I will explain in a moment, the cuts in Medicare will be extremely 
harmful to ordinary American families. If we could reduce the tax break 
down to a more manageable level and focus it at middle-income families, 
we would not need to have Medicare cuts that are so severe and so deep 
in this budget.
  Let me be more precise about what this means to ordinary families. 
Let me take what it means to the COLA increase on millions of seniors 
in our country. In the year 2002, they will get an annual COLA of about 
$327, but because of the out-of-pocket increases that must be caused 
with this large of a cut in Medicare, they will face a cut in their 
COLA of $157. In other words, half their COLA in the year 2002 will be 
taken away.
  My colleagues may say $150 is not a lot of money, but remember we are 
talking about people who are living on Social Security. It is the only 
check they get. It is the only income they have.
  And why are we doing this? Why does it need to be this deep of a cut? 
Again, because we have a $245 billion tax break, over half of which we 
believe goes to families who earn $100,000 a year or more. That is 
extreme. That is unfair and that change, that one simple change in this 
budget, would have this kind of impact.
  I want to take my colleagues back to people. This has to be looked at 
in terms of real people. Cecil Whitener and his wife Ethel live in 
Afton, MO, in my district. He fought in five major battles in World War 
II. He worked hard in a grocery store. He paid his taxes and paid into 
Medicare and Social Security all of his life.
  In the year 2002, their benefit in Medicare will be $850 a year less. 
Or put it another way, they will have to come up with $850 more than 
they would under present law. That is a real life impact to these 
people.
                              {time}  1530

  But before we assume that this cut in Medicare is simply a problem 
for these folks who are today's senior citizens, let us understand that 
the impact of this is for all American families. This is Gina Stacer, 
who is trying to save for her twins' education. She and her husband 
live paycheck to paycheck. Her parents pay their medical bills with 
Medicare and social security.
  Now, think about her and her husband and these kids and think about 
their middle-class status and what is going to happen if this budget 
conference report passes. It means people who are in middle-class 
squeeze are going to be squeezed even much more than they have been in 
the past because if she has to help pick up $850 for her parents 
because of the cut in Medicare and because she gets cut in school 
lunches or cut in student loans where these kids hopefully soon will be 
able to go to school, she gets hit from both ends. And so what is now 
middle-class 

[[Page H 6586]]
squeeze becomes middle-class squash, and that is something that we 
should not allow to happen to the middle-income people of this country.
  I say to you, my friends, we can do better than this. We can put 
together a budget that is fair for middle-income Americans, fair for 
people that have been stuck in place for the last 10 years making the 
same amount of money.
  We do not have to have a budget that gives huge tax breaks to people 
who already have it made and take it out of the hide of the hard-
working middle-income people of this country.
  Vote down this conference report, and we can do better than this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. One simple little question: If they say that we could do 
it, we can balance the budget, why have not they done it for 25 years? 
I cannot figure it out.
  Now, we have been in for less than 6 months, and we are going to do 
it.
  Let me say a couple of things. First of all, we signed a contract 
last fall, last September. We made promises to the American people: 
Balance the budget, line item veto, commonsense legal reform, welfare 
reform, cut taxes, cut committees, cut bureaucracy. They said it could 
not be done. We did it in 100 days for one reason: because we believe 
in keeping our promises. We believe in real results. We did it, and the 
American people appreciate the fact that we are politicians where our 
deeds are meeting our rhetoric.
  Is it not just great that you make a promise and you can come here to 
this House and you can deliver on it? And what we are about to do today 
is to deliver on something that all of the skeptics said could not be 
done. You think about that list of what we have already delivered on, 
the commonsense legal reform, cutting committees, cutting bureaucracy, 
giving tax relief to Americans, welfare reform, this is what Americans 
want.
  You know, some people accuse us of getting this from a pollster. Yes, 
we got it from pollsters. We got it when we went to the supermarket. We 
got it when we went to the gym. We got it when we rode the bus. We got 
it on the plane, because we listened to Americans who get up and go to 
work every day and said, ``That is our agenda.'' We made it our agenda. 
We delivered to the American people, and we are here today to balance 
the budget, provide tax relief, and keep the greatest of all of our 
promises, and we ought to feel very good about it.
  I want to thank the Democrats who joined us on the contract and thank 
the Democrats who joined us when we passed this house budget 
resolution.
  Now, why are we balancing the budget? Well, Greenspan, Alan 
Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, probably said it best, 
``Children will have a higher standard of living than their parents.'' 
That is America's greatest legacy, your kids will be better off than 
you. They will have more opportunity than you had. Your legacy will be 
that you left a healthier America for your children.
  Second, improvement in the purchasing power of
   incomes, greater exports, significant drop in interest rates. That 
is homes for everybody. That is new businesses.

  But let us get to the bottom line about this budget proposal. We 
heard about how draconian it is. First of all, Medicare: In our plan, 
we will go from $926 billion to $1.6 trillion. The only people who 
think that going from $926 billion to $1.6 trillion are living, I do 
not know, maybe in the 1950's, because, you see, we do not use this 
language anymore in America, in Arizona, in Michigan, in Florida, in 
Ohio, all across this country. When you go from $926 billion to $1.6 
trillion, that is an increase; that is an increase.
  Now, we hear the talk about those that want to go to $1.8 trillion, 
and the talk about those two senior citizens. If we do not fix Medicare 
by the year 2002, there will not be any left for them, and we are doing 
this to preserve the Medicare system and to show the greatest amount of 
compassion that is possible within the dollars that we have and to 
serve Americans with quality care and choice.
  Now, folks, when you get down to the issue of total spending in the 
Federal Government, we are going to grow from $9,500,000,000,000 to $12 
trillion. Can you believe that? From $9.5 trillion to $12 trillion, and 
there are some that say that is not enough. Do you know what Americans 
are saying when they see those numbers? ``Why are you spending so much? 
Why are you spending so much?'' The reason? Because we are on a glide 
path to balance this budget by downsizing government, eliminating 
duplication and red tape, providing tax relief, and achieving what Alan 
Greenspan said was imperative for saving the next generation.
  We can do it, ladies and gentlemen, by just slowing the growth in 
government. That is what it takes.
  This is not a dire budget. This is not a revolutionary budget. This 
is a commonsense budget to get us in balance.
  Now, let me suggest to all of you that this balanced budget is 
designed to achieve two things: One, it is about the children and the 
next generation. And do you know what Americans tell me, and they are 
telling all of you as you go through airports? Do you know what they 
do? They grab you by the wrists and they say, ``Don't stop. Do not give 
in. Don't cave in. Please keep it going. Balance the budget. Save my 
kids. Fix America. Ignore the special interests.'' That is what they 
are telling us as we go through the airports and the communities of our 
country.
  And we also want to give them a little of their money back. As Sam 
Johnson put it, it is their money not our money.
  You know what I want to close with as we look forward to bipartisan 
support, we run for office, we leave our families, we get on planes, we 
run all over, and we wonder sometimes why we do it. Today we are making 
history. Today this is a giant step for saving America, and every 
Member should leave this Chamber today with their heads held high, 
realizing this is why we came, to put America over politics, to put the 
future over the present, and, frankly, folks, the American people 
appreciate it.
  God bless America. God bless this Congress in taking this giant step 
because we are about to guarantee a prosperous America and a better 
planet.
  Vote for the resolution.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, last year we promised Americans certain 
tax cuts: to working parents we promised a $500 tax credit for their 
children, and we promised to end the tax penalty against married 
couples. To older Americans we promised to repeal President Clinton's 
massive tax increase on Social Security. And we promised to end the 
unfair rules that penalize retired Americans who work part time. 
Finally we promised that we would create economic growth and new jobs 
by reducing taxes on savings and capital investment.
  More than 80 Members of this House sent a letter to the Speaker 
seeking from the budget conference a balanced budget by the year 2002 
and the tax cuts promised by the Contract With America. We resolved 
that we can and that we must do both. The text of the letter will be 
inserted in the Record.
  Unfortunately, this conference report misses the mark. While it does 
include $245 billion in tax relief for families and businessmen and 
women, it fails to roll back the President's massive 1993 tax increase 
on seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, the most consistent theme I hear from the lunch counters 
of Muncie, IN, to the factory cafeteria in Anderson, IN, is that every 
American is overtaxed.
  I will support this rule and the underlying conference report because 
it is a significant step in the right direction. We have all summer to 
continue to cut spending and to seek greater tax cuts in the budget 
reconciliation bill this fall. And so I will support this rule and this 
conference report because it establishes a 7-year balanced budget plan 
does offer some tax relief.
  Let this also be a notice, however, that many freshmen and senior 
Members alike intend to keep our promises to the American people. We 
would not support any reconciliation bill that fails to keep our 
promise to offer all of the child tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts 
and fails to eliminate Clinton's Social Security tax increase. 
Moreover, in our minds this resolution establishes a floor--a level of 
tax relief under which we will not go--and we will fight to restore all 
of the Contract's tax cuts this fall.

                                                     May 25, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing to express our strong 
     support for your courageous and successful efforts to pass a 
     budget resolution which ensures a balanced budget by 2002 and 
     retains the full value of tax relief passed earlier by the 
     House of Representatives.

[[Page H 6587]]

       We are strongly convinced that America will thrive in the 
     next century only if governed by a limited and responsible 
     federal government. The federal government must live within 
     its means and must not crush the prosperity of its citizens. 
     Deficit spending and excessive taxation have together served 
     to expand the power of the government while reducing the 
     power of the people. A balanced budget and tax relief are not 
     only compatible, but they are also essential for restoring 
     the American dream.
       Our Founding Fathers organized this republic to: establish 
     justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common 
     defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
     blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This 
     inheritance has been neglected. For too long Congress has 
     sought to protect the state more fiercely than it has sought 
     to serve the people. We must persevere to restore government 
     of, by and for the people.
       You can count on our votes against any budget resolution 
     conference report that fails to balance the budget or 
     significantly diminishes the tax relief passed by the House.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
with this conference report. I have been a strong supporter of a 
balanced budget. However, we must ensure fairness and equity in 
achieving it. The American public is ready to tighten its belt as long 
as we all shoulder part of the load. The Coalition, a group of 
conservative Democrats which I helped form, proposed an alternative 
budget earlier this year which is based on fairness.
  This conference report is simply not fair. Foreign aid, which is 
about 1 percent of the total budget is being cut by $1.8 billion this 
year while agriculture, which is also about 1 percent of the budget, 
sustains $13.3 billion in cuts over the next 7 years. This budget takes 
the strap to American farmers while sparing dozens of foreign subsidy 
programs. Medicare and Medicaid recipients stand to lose $450 billion 
over the next 7 years under this proposal, at least $75 billion more 
than is necessary to save the program. Students will lose $10 billion 
in loan assistance to attend schools, when this is one of the most 
rewarding investments our Government can make. I supported the 
Coalition alternative because it is tough and honest. It is less 
Government. Most importantly, it is fair.
  This conference report reserves the greatest amount of spending cuts 
for the last 2 years. This means we run the risk that future Congresses 
might not be willing to make the tough cuts. I am a strong supporter of 
tax relief, but in order to achieve it, the committee bill has 
inequitably targeted agriculture, education, job training, and Medicare 
among other things. We first need to ensure the future of our children, 
and then give tax relief to ourselves.
  I hope my colleagues join me in voting against this report because a 
more intelligent, equitable balanced budget proposal exists, namely the 
one put forward by the Coalition.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on House Concurrent Resolution 67, the budget resolution for 
fiscal year 1996. This measure will cut $1.2 trillion from quality of 
life programs for the primary purpose of funding a tax cut to the 
wealthy. The tax cut is proudly touted by our republican colleagues as 
the crown jewel in the GOP Contract With America. I strongly believe 
that hard-working American families do not want to pay for a tax break 
for the wealthiest individuals on the backs of the weakest in our 
society. That is just wrong, immoral, and unfair.
  Yesterday, the Members of the House spoke with righteous indignation 
about the burning of the American flag. My colleagues, I ask that you 
have righteous indignation against making life-threatening cuts in 
vital quality-of-life programs on behalf of those in the dawn of life; 
our children--on behalf of those in the twilight of life; the elderly; 
and on behalf of those who are in the shadow of life--the sick, the 
needy, and the handicapped.
  We must not let politics outweigh the needs of the American people. 
We must not ignore the pain and suffering that will result from the 
devastating cuts in vital human capital programs including health care, 
housing, food and nutrition, human services, education,
 and employment training.

  The $270 billion cut in Medicare funding means that the elderly would 
have to pay nearly $3,000 more for health care services in the form of 
higher premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance. This increased cost of 
health care could eat up nearly 40 to 50 percent of their Social 
Security COLA.
  The $182 billion cut in Medicaid means that nearly 7 million children 
and nearly 1 million elderly disabled would lose health care coverage. 
Tens of millions of Americans would lose important benefits such as 
preventive screening services for children, home care, and hospice.
  For each $10 million cut in the Healthy Start Program, 33,000 
prenatal visits would be eliminated, 3,000 pediatric appointments would 
be eliminated, 5,800 clients would not receive child care, and 3,200 
clients would not receive skill and job training services. The 50 
percent cut in funding for the National Health Service Corps would 
eliminate primary health care services to 500,000 people living in 
medically underserved urban and rural areas.
  The 33-percent cut in education and related programs would deny 
millions of students vital education needs including safe and drug-free 
schools; concentrated educational instruction in reading and math; and 
education technology. In addition, access to and success in 
postsecondary education for the neediest students is imperiled by 
drastic funding cuts in the TRIO program. The $10 billion cut in 
student aid and threats to the continued viability of the Pell grant 
and campus-based student aid programs will saddle students with 
increasingly heavy loan debt and crushing interest payments. The 
increased debt burden places at risk and out of reach the dream of a 
college education.
  The nearly $19 billion cut to school lunch, school breakfast, summer 
food, special milk, child and adult food services would force millions 
of needy Americans to have to choose between food and housing. Without 
the low-income home energy assistance, millions of elderly would be 
forced to choose between food and heat. My colleagues, these are not 
choices.
  The 20-percent cut in employment training programs will deny millions 
of Americans the essential job training services they need to succeed 
in the labor market; it will deny dislocated workers the re-employment 
opportunities they so desperately need; and will deny summer jobs to 
over 600,000 youth who need and want to work.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not force the weak to carry the weight of the 
strong. The Republican budget will weaken the foundation of our economy 
and place our children's future at risk. House Concurrent Resolution 67 
is irresponsible and devastating to the lives of ordinary Americans. If 
these are the results of the Republicans' promise made-promise kept 
philosophy, surely some promises are definitely meant to be broken.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to show compassion and to 
stand up in defense of our Nation's children, elderly, veterans, and 
hard-working families. Vote against the conference report on House 
Concurrent Resolution 67.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
committee report on House Concurrent Resolution 67, a historic budget 
resolution.
  For the first time in more than a generation, the House of 
Representatives stands ready to adopt a budget resolution that provides 
for a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002.
  The goal of a balanced budget is not just an abstract exercise that 
some economists or green-eye-shade types thought up in their ivory 
tower.
  It is an essential economic tool to get the savings and capital 
investment we desperately need for research and development, and new 
plant and equipment to rebuild the American economy; keep us 
competitive in the global economy; and create the good jobs at good 
wages we need for this generation and those to come.
  Earlier this year, I voted once again in support of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I did so because I believe that our 
country's long-term economic health demands that the Federal 
Government's fiscal house be put in order.
  While the balanced budget amendment was narrowly defeated in the 
Senate, the need for Congress to do the right thing, and enact 
legislation that brings the budget into balance, remains as strong 
today as it was then.
  Our interest payments on the public debt, currently exceed $200 
billion a year, and are projected to increase to a mind-boggling $310 
billion within the next 4 years! Much of these interest payments are 
going abroad to foreign investors who buy our Treasury notes. In other 
words, this capital is being drained out of our economy and exported.
  If nothing is done, our country is headed for a fiscal disaster.
  At the same time, in order to avoid this calamity, balancing the 
budget will require everyone in the United States to share some of the 
sacrifice associated with reducing the Federal Government's projected 
increases in spending by more than $900 billion over the next 7 years.
  While I recognize that the opponents of House Concurrent Resolution 
67 can point to this particular detail or that specific detail as 
unacceptable, the fact remains that the Budget Committee's plan does 
not give anyone a free ride as we struggle toward a balanced budget.
  The domestic discretionary budget, which provides funds for most 
Federal education, housing, environmental, and health programs, will 
have to make do with $190 billion less over the next 7 years than 
originally anticipated.
  The non-health care entitlement programs, such as Federal employees' 
pensions, crop subsidies, and welfare programs to name just a few, are 
facing $174 billion less in funding than originally assumed.

[[Page H 6588]]

  And, while I would support additional reductions in the defense 
budget, this budget plan does exert continued downward pressure on 
defense spending. No department can be exempt from budget cutbacks if 
we are to ever reach a balanced budget.
  And Medicare and Medicaid, the Federal health care programs for the 
elderly and low-income respectively, will be asked to make due with 
$450 billion in less spending than current budget trends allow for.
  Without question, this area of savings raises the most concern for 
me, and I must state my serious skepticism about how much of these 
truly dramatic changes can, or should, be accomplished in the near-
term, if at all. By no means will I balance the budget on the backs of 
the sick elderly. We must proceed with great caution.
  Some of the specific Medicare and Medicaid reform recommendations 
that have been discussed in recent weeks will be subject to intense 
analysis by this Member of Congress as the House Ways and Means and 
Commerce Committees wrestle with the reconciliation instructions they 
will receive from this document.
  But, absent some significant reform what will happen to these 
essential programs?
  Well, for the second year in a row, the trustees for the Medicare 
program have concluded that the program will go bankrupt in 7 years if 
nothing is changed.
  Clearly, strong action and bold leadership is needed to ensure that 
our elderly will be able to receive necessary medical treatment through 
the Medicare program, and that Medicare will be there for many hard-
working families who will become eligible for Medicare in the next 10 
or 20 years.
  Again we must proceed in good faith--keeping our promises to our 
elderly.
  I, for one, support the establishment of a Bi-Partisan Blue Ribbon 
Medicare Commission--modeled after the very successful Greenspan 
Commission on Social Security in the mid-1980's--to make 
recommendations for preserving and protecting this vital program, which 
the Congress could enact confident that there is not any hidden 
political agenda to the recommendations.
  All too often, members have implied that there can be short-term 
quick fixes to the program's current structure. There are no easy, 
quick fixes here.
  When we talk about preserving and protecting Medicare's long-term 
solvency, let's do it right and put aside partisan wrangling. The 
American people are tired of partisan bickering and sniping. They want 
us to face the issues intelligently and fairly.
  While the Budget Committee's plan does call for some dramatic changes 
to these programs, we must keep in mind that the alternative is 
completely unacceptable: a bankrupted Medicare program that does not 
help the elderly and is not there for anyone else either.
  With respect to the ongoing efforts to provide middle-class families 
with some tax relief, I supported H.R. 1215 earlier this year because 
it contained many elements--such as expanded Individual Retirement 
Accounts, capital gains tax relief, expanded capital investment 
deductions for small businesses--of a save and invest in America 
agenda, which I have long advocated.
  However, I was one of a small group of Republicans that petitioned 
our leadership to defer any tax reductions until the Congressional 
Budget Office had certified that the budget was, in fact, going to be 
balanced. Unfortunately, these preconditions have been significantly 
modified in the final version of House Concurrent Resolution 67.
  Consequently, we must be mindful that the enactment of tax relief 
legislation will result in lower Federal revenues in the short term, 
which in turn requires that the Congress cut spending further in order 
to offset these losses.
  The final conference committee report provides for no more than $245 
billion in tax relief, meaning that the Congress will not have to find 
an additional $110 billion spending cuts over 7 years to compensate for 
the tax relief package as originally proposed by the House.
  I would add that I have joined other Republicans who are already 
moving to limit the so-called family tax credit to families with 
incomes of less than $100,000. I fully support this effort and working 
to see it adopted.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, approving the Budget Committee's 
conference report represents the first step in our annual budget 
process. The 13 regular appropriations bills, combined with an omnibus 
budget reconciliation package, will be where the nitty-gritty details 
of this budget plan are hashed-out.
  That process will not be without difficulty, but as we prepare to 
enact legislation that balances the Federal budget we should not kid 
ourselves into thinking that it will be easy to do. At the same time, 
we should acknowledge the terrible cost to our Nation if we do nothing.
  Balancing the Federal budget is essential to protect our Nation's 
long-term financial health, and to ensure that the country our children 
and grandchildren inherit is as great as the one our parents gave us.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, I rise today to speak 
against the cuts this budget resolution inflicts on the Federal 
Aviation Administration [FAA].
  While we all support sound and responsible spending, the cuts to the 
FAA budget are neither. The result of these cuts will give us skies 
that are more crowded, equipment that is older, air traffic control 
personnel that are even more overworked, and air travel that is more 
dangerous.
  While air traffic has grown more than 6 percent over the last 2 
years, the FAA budget experienced a real decline of 6 percent--that's a 
$600 million decrease.
  The budget resolution conference agreement cuts an additional $10 
billion from transportation spending, cuts which will jeopardize the 
safety and efficiency of the aviation system proposed by the President.
  Under this budget proposal--a safe and efficient aviation system for 
the nation will be dramatically jeopardized.
  The FAA's ability to improve weather safety equipment and to prevent 
accidents would be compromised.
  Introduction of satellite navigation technology would be delayed at 
least 5 years, costing air carriers millions of dollars per year in 
efficiencies.
  The FAA would be less able to respond to domestic and international 
terrorism. Security specialists would be cut by one-third, ending the 
FAA's ability to assure compliance with security regulations to provide 
on-site monitoring and to assist air carriers experiencing major 
terrorist threats. We need look no further than the current pall of 
fear that hangs over Los Angeles International airport to imagine the 
likely effect of security cutbacks.
  The FAA would no longer be able to certify new aircraft, engines, or 
parts. These responsibilities would be transferred to private 
interests.
  All FAA international offices would be closed, eliminating FAA's 
international presence for safety, security, and certification 
functions and undermining our goal of ensuring U.S. passenger safety 
worldwide.
  Research into better methods of protecting passengers from inflight 
and post-crash fires would end altogether.
  From fiscal year 1995 to 2002, the work force of air traffic 
controllers and flight service technicians would be reduced 44 
percent--despite a 34-percent increase in the number of passengers and 
a 17-percent increase in commercial operations.
  Flight service stations and control towers would be closed to the 
detriment of general aviation and small communities. Hundreds of 
communities in all 50 States would lose jobs and air traffic services. 
And, almost 105,000 flights would be delayed annually, at a cost to 
carriers and passengers that exceeds $2.3 billion.
  Equipment-related delays--caused by funding shortfalls for new 
technology and skilled maintenance technicians--would rise dramatically 
from 4,000 to 50,000 per year, and additional operating costs would 
grow for carriers and passengers.
  We are all aware of the desperate need to guarantee 100 percent 
safety for the flying public. We are too familiar with the tragic 
consequences when that safety is compromised.
  Mr. Speaker, we all benefit from the FAA's ability to provide safe 
and timely travel--let's not jeopardize that by approving this budget 
resolution. I urge my colleagues to keep the skies friendly--and safe--
and reject this budget resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution 
conference agreement.
  I am committed to balancing the budget. That requires difficult 
choices, and over the years I have not shied away from the tough votes 
to cut spending. In fact, I have voted for every serious comprehensive 
deficit reduction proposal--under both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents--since coming to Congress.
  But this budget proposal, although well-intentioned, is poorly 
conceived.
  This resolution calls for making $270 billion in cuts from Medicare, 
yet, the Republicans have not produced a single specific proposal on 
how to achieve these savings. When taken together with the $180 billion 
in cuts to Medicaid, these cuts could jeopardize the well-being of the 
best health care system in the world, to say nothing of what it can do 
to the affordability of health care for seniors, the ability of seniors 
to use the doctor of their choice, and the viability of teaching 
hospitals and the medical education programs they support. Finally, the 
ability of the aged and the disabled to receive the nursing home care 
they so desperately need will be jeopardized.
  And why would we place Medicare and Medicaid including long-term care 
in such peril? So that the Republicans can pay for an ill-conceived tax 
break mainly for the privileged few.
  At a time when U.S. income inequality is the worst among 
industrialized nations and is at 

[[Page H 6589]]
its greatest level since records have been kept, this budget handsomely 
rewards the privileged few at the expense of everybody else.
  The Treasury warned that over half of the benefits of the original 
House plan would go to the top 12 percent of taxpayers, and there's no 
indication that this package will be any different. Yet this is the 
only group whose incomes went up and whose effective tax rates went 
down over the past decade and a half.
  The rest of America, whose incomes stagnated or declined during the 
same period, not only get the crumbs in terms of tax breaks, but bear 
the brunt of paying for the whole tax package through greater cuts in 
Medicare, student loans, veterans benefits, and other middle-class 
programs.
  Further, this budget will dull the edge of America's future 
competitiveness by gutting our Nation's investment in education across-
the-board, at a time when more and more jobs call for greater skills 
and abilities.
  And for what? I am willing to accept a modest increase in inequality 
if there's a reasonable prospect of significantly greater economic 
growth for all. But these tax cuts can't deliver. Treasury, CBO, CRS, 
and Joint Committee on Taxation, and a host of economists across the 
political spectrum have all concluded that the benefits, if any, are 
likely to be quite small.
  Finally, I think the American people have the right to know the exact 
price for these tax cuts and for balancing the budget generally. 
Republicans claim that they've paid for the tax cuts and that they've 
committed themselves to achieving a balanced budget by 2002. The truth 
is that the major offset in the bill is a promise to cut spending in 
the future, and that the commitment to balance the budget rests still 
more promises to cut in the future.
  None of these promises are backed by specific spending cuts. To make 
matters worse, Republicans have gerry-rigged the tax cuts so that most 
of the revenue loss comes in the years beyond the budget window, so 
under House rules they don't have to pay for the full cost of these tax 
cuts.
  I am all for real, responsible deficit reduction. But this budget in 
many ways is not real, and in any event is not responsible.
  That is why I am voting against the budget resolution conference 
agreement.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 67, the 1996 budget 
resolution. It is imperative that we take steps to correct our current 
budget dilemma. I believe today is as good as any day to set in motion 
a plan which will bring our government back to an environment of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Many folks are concerned this legislation will take away benefits 
which they now receive. In reality, if we do not make a concerted 
effort to balance our budget by encouraging efficiency of Government 
services, we will be unable to offer any assistance in the near future 
as a result of irresponsible budget decisions. It is my belief this 
budget resolution will allow those decisions to be made at the 
appropriate committee level.
  The projected savings in Medicare and Medicaid are most troubling to 
me, as their numbers are so high. However, there is nothing in the 
budget resolution that requires the committee of jurisdiction on which 
I serve to adopt the assumptions used in reaching the $270 and $180 
billion savings. We must look at all options while keeping in mind our 
commitment to the American people who contributed to the Medicare 
insurance program throughout their working lives, and those low-income 
individuals who need the helping hand of the Government. I believe all 
of us recognize the merits of these programs as well as the need to 
insure their solvency by slowing the rate of growth in these programs, 
by asking health care providers and beneficiaries to help us find fair 
ways to make the program solvent for future generations; and by 
increasing choice and individual responsibility without deceasing 
benefits and access to the best health care system in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to act in a bipartisan manner and vote in favor 
of this resolution, which will allow the important process of balancing 
our budget to move forward as well as allow future generations to have 
the opportunity to enjoy the American Dream.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
on the fiscal year 1996 budget. I strongly disagree with the priorities 
laid out in this document--especially the policy of gutting Federal 
health, education, and safety-net programs for average Americans in 
order to provide tax cuts for the most affluent members of our society.
  Now is not the time for massive tax cuts. We desperately need to 
reduce the growing Federal deficit. The budget plan contained in this 
conference report would reduce Federal receipts by $245 billion over 7 
years. Such tax cuts would force deep, irresponsible cuts in Medicare 
and Medicaid--as well as other important Federal programs like 
education, training, infrastructure, and nutrition programs.
  We all know that we must reduce the Federal Government's massive 
structural deficit. To do that, we have to make difficult choices about 
worthwhile programs and scarce resources. However, I don't think that 
many of my colleagues really understand the magnitude of the cuts 
required under this budget resolution--or the impact that such changes 
would have on the vast majority of people in this country. The cuts 
proposed for Medicare, Medicaid, education and training programs, urban 
redevelopment, and Federal safety-net programs will devastate millions 
of families.
  Moreover, if the experience of the last 15 years has taught us 
anything, it is that we never have as good a grip on deficit reduction 
as we think we do. We should have learned to err on the side of caution 
and conservatism when estimating deficits 5--or 7--years down the line. 
Consequently, I believe that it is irresponsible to adopt a massive tax 
cut at this time.
  Finally, I believe that the tax cuts proposed in this budget are 
distributionally unfair. These tax cuts are targeted toward the rich; 
many working-class families won't see a penny from them. If we want to 
reduce the tax burden on the hard-pressed middle class, we should 
rethink our approach. Honest hard-working families that often hold down 
several jobs--and still have to struggle to make ends meet--need tax 
relief a lot more than America's most affluent families.
  For these reasons, I urge the House to reject the conference report 
on the budget resolution and to begin again. It's not too late to draw 
up a budget that cuts the deficit responsibly without stabbing middle-
class families and the elderly in the back.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant opposition to 
this budget resolution.
  Without a doubt, the time to act on slowing the growth of Federal 
spending and Federal programs is upon us. We cannot continue to borrow 
and spend and push our country into bankruptcy.
  Today we are faced with the blueprint for how the Republican 
leadership plans to reach a balanced budget in 7 years. I've spent 
enough time studying the issues and talking about them with people in 
my district that I could be a budget architect, and if I had a seat at 
the table, I would make a few changes in the design.
  I would soften the blow on working families who struggle to save and 
invest enough to send their kids to college and pay their rent or 
mortgages. And I would tell them that the best tax cut we can give them 
and their children is real deficit reduction.
  I have held countless town meetings to discuss with the people of the 
19th District the very real budget decisions which we must make. People 
in my part of Illinois are not clamoring for tax cuts which cannot be 
afforded any more than they want to keep open obsolete agencies or 
continue to fund ineffective programs. They want to make sure the 
priority needs are met and put a brake on spending which we can't 
afford.
  Balancing the budget won't be easy and it won't come without the loss 
of some programs and activities which people in the 19th District 
appreciate. I am more than willing to shoulder that responsibility 
because the deficit and accumulated debt is the No. 1 problem facing 
this country. But one of my great regrets is that the highly-charged 
partisan atmosphere in Congress won't allow us to craft a plan which 
would have broad, bipartisan support. I credit the Republican 
leadership for putting this package together, with the regret that we 
could not find more middle ground on some of our basic concerns.
  The real disappointment is that all of what is being done today will 
be nothing but empty rhetoric when it comes time to put it into law. 
The Congress will pass legislation which follows the unfair and 
unrealistic instructions contained in this resolution, the President 
will, rightly so, veto those bills, those vetoes will stand and we will 
have to come back and do what we should be doing right now, which is 
working in a bipartisan way to balance the budget. I stand ready to 
assist in that effort. And so, it is with reluctance that I vote 
against the resolution, in hopes that we work together to address the 
budget crisis facing this country.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to 
remind my colleagues of what carried a Republican majority to the House 
of Representatives: it was an electorate demanding fundamental changes 
in failed government agencies and policies, and a vast reduction of the 
growing Federal deficit.
  The budget resolution before us certainly creates a clear path to 
fiscal soundness. However, we continue to face the difficult challenge 
of implementing this plan, including the restructuring of our Federal 
departments and agencies. As chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, and on behalf of its Republican members, I would 
like to reaffirm our commitment toward creating a
 

[[Page H 6590]]
new 21st Century Government that is less intrusive, less costly and 
more responsive to the American taxpayer.

  The American people have lost patience with a government that grows 
in size but not in service. For instance, the U.S. General Accounting 
Office has documented the problem of massive duplication within our 
Federal departments in reporting that the Department of Commerce shares 
its mission with at least 71 Federal departments, agencies, and 
offices. As a result of this duplication and other inefficiencies 
within the Federal Government, the American taxpayer and future 
generations will bear the burden of a U.S. tax receipt system that is 
13 times the size it was in 1960.
  I support the budget resolution's goal of eliminating the Department 
of Commerce as an initial step in the overall restructuring process. 
The next crucial step is determining whether consolidation, 
privatization, localization, or elimination will produce the most 
effective and innovative results within each agency. Republican members 
of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee pledge to continue 
these reorganization efforts by evaluating all Federal agencies and 
departments to determine if their missions and functions are still 
viable resources to the American public.
  In fact, next month, the Committee will begin a series of nationwide 
field hearings that will serve as an open forum for experts in 
organizational management, as well as the public, to voice their ideas 
about what they want their government to do for them and what their 
government should look like. Let's allow the American public to have a 
voice in this historic process of change.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate the significant amount of 
resources that can be saved, over the long-term, through the 
restructuring of inefficient Federal Government agencies. I remain 
dedicated to creating an innovative government through the use and 
guidance of private and public sector experts in the restructuring 
field.
  The time has come for citizens, experts, and lawmakers to join 
together in the common cause of creating a 21st Century Government. 
Through a collaborative effort the Government we create can be as 
effective and innovative as the Government we envision.
  I thank the Chairman and yield back.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker. The conference agreement on the fiscal year 
1996 budget resolution includes proposed savings of about $4.4 billion 
over the next 7 years from the assumption that the Davis-Bacon Act will 
be repealed. However, the specific assumption for repeal of the Act is 
not binding on the committees of jurisdiction over Davis-Bacon and does 
not prejudge the enactment of legislation to repeal the Act. With this 
in mind, I plan to support the Conferees' Report.
  However, I would like to be very clear in stating that I have serious 
doubts as to whether the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act will actually 
result in any serious savings--let alone savings amounting to $4.4 
billion--and I question the need for this language in the Conferees' 
Report. Several studies have indicated that repealing the Act would be, 
at best, neutral with respect to Federal construction costs when 
compared to lost revenue due to reduced wages.
  The Davis-Bacon Act has been a focus of congressional consideration 
since the 1950's. There appears to be little indisputable evidence with 
respect to its impact. In light of this, some have called the Act a 
Special Interest `dole-out' that is earmarked specifically for 
organized labor. But this is an unfair assessment. If there is any 
clear evidence with respect to the Davis-Bacon Act, it is that the Act 
has effectively taken the wages of working men and women out of the 
Federal construction bidding process. I hope that my colleagues 
understand this. And I urge them to vote against any measures to repeal 
the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my great appreciation to Mr. Kasich, 
the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, on his efforts to maintain 
Congress' commitment to our Nation's veterans during this extremely 
difficult process of balancing the budget.
  The other members of the Budget Committee, especially Mr. Hoke, Mrs. 
Molinari, and Mr. Bass of the National Security Budget Task Force, also 
deserve great credit for their efforts.
  These Members worked long and hard to assure that veterans were not 
unfairly singled out for any new cuts, and that the budget was not 
balanced on the backs of veterans.
  Unfortunately demagoguery and misinformation about this resolution 
have been used by the administration to scare veterans into fearing the 
absolute worst about this budget.
  These have been desperate administration tactics to confuse veterans 
and steer their attention away from the administration's own budget 
proposals which in some ways would be worse for veterans than the 
recommendations of this conference report.
  In unprecedented partisan fashion administration officials have 
talked about a mean spirit on Capitol Hill toward veterans.
  When the reality has been that the mandatory savings provisions 
proposed by the House Budget Committee have simply extended current law 
and items passed by previous Congresses.
  Additionally, most of these proposals were signed into law by 
President Clinton in 1993, and included in both of his budget proposals 
submitted this year.
  The reality is that this conference agreement recommends an increase 
in annual veterans' spending from $36.9 billion to $40.4 billion per 
year over the next 7 years.
  This amounts to a total of $276 billion--an increase of $39.5 billion 
over the last 7 years.
  This is during a period when the veteran population is rapidly 
declining.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that between 1990 and 
the year 2010, the veteran population will decrease by 7 million, or 26 
percent.
  There were dire predictions earlier this year that the budget would 
contain entitlement reform proposals devastating veterans benefits.
  The veterans organizations testified in great opposition to means 
testing disability compensation, taxing veterans benefits, or removing 
10 and 20 percent service-connected disabled veterans from the 
compensation roles.
  None of these proposals are included in this budget conference 
report.
  And based on my dealings with the Budget chairman over the past few 
months, I can assure veterans that none of them were ever seriously 
considered by the House Budget Committee.
  The conference report does mandate reconciliation savings of $6.4 
billion over 7 years.
  This is about the same amount of savings achieved by the 
Reconciliation Acts passed in 1990 and 1993.
  Many Members, who are now complaining about this budget's impact upon 
veterans voted for these same proposals in 1990 and 1993.
  They may want to check their prior votes.
  All veterans will benefit from the financial improvements balancing 
the budget can bring to the American economy.
  Younger veterans with families and children will certainly benefit 
from the $500 per child tax credit, regardless of their income.
  Additionally, this budget protects the Social Security benefits of 
older veterans.
  Others have highlighted the list of economic benefits a balanced 
budget will provide so I will not repeat them at this time.
  The latest dire predictions veterans have been scared by is that this 
budget resolution results in closed VA medical centers.
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  As a matter of fact, over the next 5 years, the President's budget 
proposes $339 million less for VA health care than this conference 
report.
  It is contradictory for administration officials to claim the budget 
conference agreement results in hospital closures over 7 years and that 
the President's budget proposal would not.
  One could certainly ask how many hospitals would have closed if 
funding were at the President's recommended level of the 10 years of 
his latest budget plan.
  This resolution does not mandate or require any specific level of 
spending on VA health care.
  As all Members and administration officials know, the appropriation 
bill sets the specific spending level for VA health care.
  The appropriators will make decisions on spending levels for VA 
health care next month.
  I will work with the Appropriations Committee in the same manner as I 
have with the Budget Committee to assure adequate spending levels for 
VA health care programs.
  I encourage all Members to make their priorities known to the 
Appropriations Committee.
  The rising national debt and interest on that debt have created a 
crisis which Congress must face now.
  It is truly a matter of saving our country from financial ruin.
  Our children and grandchildren will either inherit a declining 
standard of living or gain freedom from the financial excesses of our 
generation.
  We can either pass a balanced budget and work to protect high 
priority veterans programs, or go with the President's budget, ignore 
our national financial crisis, and add over a trillion dollars to the 
debt our children will have to repay.
  I urge Members to support the conference report, to save our 
country's financial future and protect our veterans.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House-
Senate Republican budget conference report.
  This proposal, a compromise written by the House and Senate Budget 
Committees, would give the very wealthy an enormous tax break 

[[Page H 6591]]
while at the same time devastating Medicare and other vital programs. I 
voted against this package as a conferee and will vote no on final 
passage in the House.
  The goal of this budget proposal is one I share: balancing the 
federal budget by the year 2002. In January, I voted for a 
constitutional amendment to balance our federal budget. I believe we 
must end the continued policy of running billion-dollar deficits every 
year which add to the national debt that must be paid by our children 
and grandchildren.
  But we should not balance the budget by cutting student loans, 
Medicare, Social Security, funding for veterans and infrastructure 
while offering a $245 billion tax cut. This outrageous cut will give 
the wealthiest families a cut of over $15,000 while giving most middle-
income families an average of only $500 in tax relief.
  We must also balance our budget in a way which does not put such a 
tremendous burden on our nation's elderly. Last fall, during town 
meetings with my constituents, I talked about the ``Contract with 
America,'' and its potential impact on Social Security and Medicare. I 
suggested that if the Republican plan were enacted, our seniors would 
see huge Medicare cuts, higher Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket 
costs, and an effort to cut Social Security. If you examine the 
Republican budget closely, it does all three.
  It cuts $270 billion from Medicare over seven years, meaning that the 
service currently provided by Medicare will be significantly less in 
2002. By cutting the Medicare program by 25 percent in 2002, out-of-
pocket costs for seniors will increase by over $1000 in 2002. And, this 
budget begins the dangerous concept of reducing Social Security cost-
of-living-adjustments, beginning in 1999, by altering the Consumer 
Price Index. This will reduce the average benefit by $240 per person.
  The Republicans have also suggested this plan will actually balance 
the budget in 2002. Unfortunately, their proposal relies on unsound 
economics and budget gimmicks to reach a balanced budget. This budget 
assumes a $170 billion ``economic bonus'' between 1996 and 2002 for 
attempting to balance the budget. This is based on a rosy scenario that 
our financial markets would react to lower interest rates by an 
optimistic 2 percent in 2002. Without this bonus, the budget is not 
balanced, and the promises behind this budget remain unfulfilled.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget. I believe if we got rid of 
the $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy and used those funds to help 
keep Medicare solvent; if we asked the very wealthy instead to pay 
their fair share; restored some funding for some of our most needed 
initiatives, such as student loans; and did not tamper with Social 
Security, we would reach this goal. Unfortunately, a majority of my 
colleagues did not agree with our efforts to make these changes in the 
Budget Committee.
  Therefore, I intend to vote against he Kasich budget plan on the 
floor of the House.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference 
agreement on the budget that we have before us today. Like the 
Republican budget proposal which passed the House last month, this is a 
measure which seeks to pay for the Republicans' tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals on the backs of children's nutrition and the elderly's 
Medicare and at the expense of sound education, health and welfare 
benefits.
  The conference agreement worked out by the Republicans is, to say the 
least, disappointing. In this time of fiscal stringency, it makes no 
sense for the Republicans to continue to insist on providing costly 
unfair tax breaks to wealthier Americans and corporations while cutting 
off programs which invest in our nation's future, our children and our 
people. Yet that is what this conference agreement does. The size of 
the tax breaks is slightly different from the House-passed resolution, 
now they cost $245 billion over just five years, but they remain unfair 
and slated for enactment before the budget paper promises are close to 
being fulfilled.
  Surely, the Republicans do not expect the American people to believe 
that these huge unfair tax breaks, which are a throwback to the failed 
economic policies of the 1980's, will be an investment in our country's 
future? The Republicans make this claim even as they plot deep cuts in 
student loan funds by $10 billion over seven years, as they cut funding 
for education across the board, which is one of the most important 
investments our country can make. At a time when jobs demand more 
preparation and the cost of a college education is rising twice as fast 
as income, cutting education funding is indeed a losing proposition. We 
need to support education as a budget priority, not as a political 
throwaway to pay for the wealthy's tax breaks. This conference 
agreement has it backward.
  The GOP budget further digs the deficit hole deeper with seventy 
billion dollars more for the Pentagon, wed to cold war mentality.
  At the same time this is a budget which not only slams doors shut on 
Americans wanting to gain an education, but sadly decimates programs 
which provide a safety net for our nation's elderly and poor. The 
budget cuts $270 billion from Medicare, $182 billion from Medicaid, 
$100 billion from welfare programs, and another $71 billion from other 
entitlement programs. In the seven year Republican paper promise to 
achieve a balance, ironically economists can often predict 7 months in 
advance much less seven years into the future.
  In the absence of any real explanation, the Republicans simply split 
the difference on the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid between the House 
and Senate plans. Thus, the amount of the cuts were arbitrarily set, 
without rhyme, reason or thought as to the consequences on people 
today. Without contemplating the effects, the Republicans today promise 
draconian cuts that will mean fewer benefits, higher out-of-pocket 
costs for seniors, and less choice of doctors. This is the GOP 
blueprint. Nearly 83 percent of Medicare benefits go to seniors with 
incomes of $25,000 or less. Just think about what that does to seniors 
who rely upon the Federal Medicare promise. The proposed reductions 
would have a devastating effect on these people. Likewise, Medicaid is 
the only major Federal source of funding for long-term care and the 
proposed cuts will have drastic results for our nation's seniors, with 
over one-half the benefits flowing to elderly Americans.
  The irony of this is that in the last Congress, the Republicans 
refused to support meaningful comprehensive health care reform, saying 
there was no crisis in health care. Now they have conveniently 
discovered ironically a slightly improved Medicare Trustees Annual 
Report and bemoan it as a crisis. Actually the 1995 report suggests a 
slight improvement over 1994. The GOP is going to solve this health 
care crisis by cutting benefits to seniors and reimbursements to health 
care providers while giving tax breaks to wealthy Americans. This is 
not the approach that will protect and preserve Medicare and the 
elderly and help finally to rationalize the health care system.
  It's an unfair plan, it's unworkable but no doubt the GOP will score 
the political points and then try to dump the problem and duty on the 
President or the Democrats.
  The priorities outlined in this budget agreement are outrageous. We 
ought to be offering hope by acknowledging the reality that the Federal 
Government needs to remain a partner in supporting the basic needs of 
our citizens. The people we represent. However, what I am seeing is an 
erosion of support for working families and an eradication of support 
for those who cannot make ends meet in order to give wealthier folks 
unreasonable tax breaks. Republican paper promises and up front tax 
breaks with back loaded deficit reduction don't signify political 
courage, as they would have us believe, but political pandering yet 
another postponement of fiscal reality. Republican priorities are 
focused on change at the bottom line, producing enough money for the 
Republican tax breaks today for well off Americans, not empowering 
families and compounding the serious deficit problems for tomorrow.
  This proposition will abandon the policy track of the 1993 Democratic 
budget blueprint--which is exceeding its promise, a balanced Democrat 
1993 budget package of tax fairness and reductions in spending, which 
would be a one trillion dollar deficit reduction in its seven year 
cycle--the Republicans may have the votes to hatch this ploy but beyond 
the tax breaks no stomach to carry out the plot.
  I urge my colleagues today to reject the GOP scheme and get back to 
the real world of fiscal discipline, not political hyperbole.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this budget 
resolution.
  I support a balanced budget amendment and am prepared to make the 
tough choices needed to stop the flow of red ink. But this budget is 
built on a faulty foundation and constructed with a tax break for the 
rich that we can not afford.
  In the midst of a fiscal crisis is it responsible to give away $245 
billion in tax cuts? I do not think so. A tax break for the wealthy 
means less for everyone else. It means breaking our commitments to the 
American people. It says we no longer care about seniors who have built 
our country and we no longer care about educating our young people who 
will ensure our country's future.
  Seniors must give up, get less, and pay more and college bound 
students must go it alone.
  Mr. Speaker, we can reduce the deficit in a balanced and fair way--
one that reduces spending while investing in our future.
  My constituents care deeply about education, protection of our 
fragile environment, basic research, and fairness. They say cut and 
invest. This budget does neither and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a balanced 
budget. But I rise in 

[[Page H 6592]]
opposition to the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 67, 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1996-2002.
  Make no mistake. This bill reflects Republican priorities. It is a 
Republican budget that rewards the well-off and sticks the less-
fortunate with the bill.
  Republican conferees had an impossible task. Dress up a bill that 
hurts the elderly, the young, and the disadvantaged. Dress up a bill 
that guts Medicare and Medicaid, forces seniors to pay more out-of-
pocket costs for health care, and devastates rural and inner-city 
hospitals. Dress up a bill that makes it more difficult for our 
children to go to college and get the education they deserve. Dress up 
a bill that lines the pockets of wealthy Americans.
  It should come as no surprise that they failed. This bill was just 
too ugly to dress-up. But the American people do not need me to tell 
them how bad this budget plan is. Listen to your friends, your 
neighbors, and your family.
  In my district, I listened to the Hopkins family. They're the real 
experts. The Hopkins have been married for 40 years. Mr. Hopkins works 
part-time at McDonalds, as he has for 6 years.
  Every dollar counts. Although Mr. Hopkins worked for many years for a 
small business, he does not have a pension to rely on. Instead the 
Hopkins depend on Social Security, and Mr. Hopkins small supplemental 
income.
  With $490 a month going towards rent, the Hopkins have little left 
over to cover the cost of medical emergencies.
  Under the Republican plan, the Hopkins will pay as much as $2,000 a 
year more to cover cuts in Medicare. Although they fortunately have no 
co-payments right now, an increase of this size would be devastating.
  The Hopkins are not a special case. They have worked hard all their 
lives. They have made the right choices, and they have sacrificed when 
we have asked.
  Mrs. Hopkins has a heart condition. She has asthma. And arthritis. 
She pays for her own medicine--about $200 a month. This cost represents 
a sizable percentage of their monthly income. After paying for rent, 
utilities, and food, they have almost nothing left over for clothes.
  Mrs. Hopkins told me: ``Leave our Medicare alone. We could not make 
it without Medicare. My last trip to the hospital just about broke 
us.'' A recent trip to the hospital dramatized the Hopkins' precarious 
position. Although the ambulance and hospital stay were paid for, Mrs. 
Hopkins was required to pay an additional $130 for twenty pills.
  While the Hopkins work to make ends meet, with dignity and strength, 
the Republican's have decided that it's fair to make life more 
difficult for families like this one. The Hopkins are right on the 
margin.
  The Hopkins do not have any room to give. How can we ask them to 
sacrifice, and, at the same time, reward the wealthiest members of our 
society with a generous tax cut. Will the Hopkins benefit from this tax 
cut? No. The Hopkins will pay more and get less.
  I can not support a budget plan that doesn't put hard-working 
Americans first--that does not put the Hopkins first.
  I will support a fiscally responsible and sensible budget. The budget 
offered by my colleague, Mr. Stenholm, was just such a budget. By 
proposing sensible reforms in health care programs, and preserving 
crucial funding for education, rural health, research, and economic 
development programs, the Stenholm budget achieved a zero deficit 
without permanently crippling our society.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this budget. Do not let the American 
people down.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution because it makes massive 
cuts in Federal education and training programs. In addition, the 
Republicans are going to make it harder for children from middle class 
families to attend college--so it's easier for them to hand out tax 
cuts to the rich.
  The Republican budget resolution reminds me of what Hall of Fame 
catcher Yogi Berra once said when he walked into a popular New York 
restaurant. He looked around the packed dinning room and said: ``No 
wonder no one comes here anymore, it's always crowded.''
  That about sums up the logic of the Republican about-face on its 
longtime support for Federal education programs, especially student 
financial aid. After discovering just how popular and successful the 
in-school interest subsidy has been the House Republicans proposed its 
complete elimination.
  Their original proposal to cut student aid by $18.7 billion was a 
foolish departure from the bipartisan, national policy to expand access 
to higher education that has existed since President Truman.
  The conference agreement is hardly any better. Republicans will 
almost certainly have to eliminate the in-school interest subsidy for 
graduate and professional students.
  More than 500,000 graduate students, all from needy families, will be 
affected by the loss of the subsidy. For some, Ph.D. students 
especially, the proposal will increase their loan payments by as much 
as $375 per month and will increase total loan costs by $45,000.
  Despite what Republicans think, not every graduate student goes out 
and makes big bucks as a lawyer or stock broker. Many become teachers, 
ministers, social workers and, I might add, history professors, all of 
which are ordinarily not high-paying professions--unless, of course, 
they run for Congress, become Speaker and win a big, fat book contract.
  The net result is that many young people who would have gone into 
these worthy professions will be forced to pursue higher-paying careers 
to be able to pay their loans back. That will mean more lawyers and 
fewer teachers. I guess this is what Republicans call progress.
  Republicans still need to come up with another $7 billion in student 
aid cuts to meet their budget target. They have not said how they will 
do it, but one thing is sure: Whatever they do will hurt students. The 
Republicans are going to make it harder for children from middle class 
families to attend college--so it's easier for them to hand out tax 
cuts to the rich.
  The in-school interest subsidy helps tear down the financial barriers 
that would otherwise keep many deserving students from attending 
college and graduate programs. Moreover, taxpayers are paid back 
handsomely: college graduates earn higher incomes, and, consequently, 
pay higher taxes. Most graduate students who benefit from the subsidy 
will repay it in Federal income taxes within a few years.
  For our society as a whole, the rate of return on this investment in 
education is overwhelming. Student aid has made our society more 
mobile, more prosperous, more stable, and, yes, more fair! Our economy 
is the strongest in the world, in large part, because our colleges have 
produced highly trained scientists, engineers, and managers.
  In short, we are all better off, collectively and individually. Just 
ask Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Armey, two former recipients 
of Federal student financial aid who went on to bigger and better 
things, due in no small part to the college education they received.
  This debate, however, is about more than just economics. For 
generations a college degree has meant one thing: you have done 
everything possible to make sure your children have gotten off on the 
right foot in life. For parents and children alike, a college education 
has made dreams come true.
  That is why the Democratic party has supported expanding access to 
higher education and why we believe that every person who wants to 
attend college and has the necessary intellectual capacity should 
attend college.
  Finally, this budget should be defeated because of the massive cuts 
it makes in Federal education and training programs. President Clinton 
has correctly proposed massive increases in education and training 
spending--on the order of $40 billion over 7 years. The Republicans 
will cut $35 billion dollars.
  Their cuts in the education and training account will reduce the real 
buying power of these programs by 33.2 percent in the year 2002. These 
cuts will have a devastating impact on a whole range of programs.
  Republican budget cuts will harm efforts: to assist local schools and 
communities working to improve their schools, raise their standards and 
increase parental involvement, to make schools safer and drug free, to 
provide students access to computers and technology in the classroom, 
to help limited English speaking children meet challenging academic 
standards, and to help schools meet needs of disadvantaged native 
American children.
  Education is perhaps the most important investment we can make in a 
global economy. If America is to compete, our workers must be the best 
educated in the world. This country wants and needs a strong Federal 
role in education. I urge the defeat of this budget resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time within 
which a rollcall vote by electronic device may be taken, without 
intervening business, on adoption of the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 190, not voting 2, as follows:

[[Page H 6593]]


                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--242

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     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
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moakley
     Reynolds
       

                              {time}  1558

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). For what purpose does the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] rise?


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to lay on the table the motion 
to reconsider offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 191, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 457]

                               AYES--236

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     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
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon

[[Page H 6594]]

     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Buyer
     Dornan
     Gibbons
     Moakley
     Orton
     Reynolds
     Waxman

                              {time}  1616

  Mr. COYNE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McINTOSH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 194, not voting 2, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 458]

                               YEAS--239

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     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
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     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
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moakley
     Reynolds
       

                              {time}  1629

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________