[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 178 (Friday, November 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12105-H12113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1963

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as 
a cosponsor of H.R. 1963, and to delete my name from subsequent 
references and printings of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  
[[Page H 12106]]


MOTION TO DISPOSE OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 2586, TEMPORARY INCREASE 
                      IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 262, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a 
temporary increase in the public debt limit and for other purposes, 
with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 262, the Senate 
amendment is considered as having been read.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Page 34, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and 
     including line 17 on page 251.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to House Resolution 
262, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, the Senate considered and passed H.R. 2586, 
a temporary increase in the Government's borrowing authority, approving 
all of the provisions in the House bill that we sent over, except for 
the proposal eliminating the Commerce Department.
  The bill now contains the most crucial pieces that we approved 
yesterday: a downpayment on a balanced budget, a brighter future for 
our children, and the protection of Social Security and other Federal 
benefit trust funds.
  Mr. Speaker, these protections are essential, because the Treasury 
Department right now is planning to raid the civil service trust fund 
as a circuit breaker to avoid breaching the debt limit. But this 
circuit breaker is really a high voltage wire that directly taps into 
retiree trust funds.
  In time, the administration may be even tempted to raid the Social 
Security trust fund if, in fact, the President continues to stall and 
does not come to a resolution of the debt problem with this Congress.
  Currently, the law does not protect the Social Security trust fund, 
but the provisions in this bill do. The provisions prevent the 
Secretary of the Treasury from ever raiding the Social Security trust 
funds.

  Mr. Speaker, the administration may veto this bill, but the steps it 
takes to get around the legal limits on borrowing will be closely 
watched. If assets are taken from the funds, we will know it and we 
stand ready to protect retiree and other benefits.
  This short-term extension is intended to provide the administration 
with the opportunity to have an orderly management of the debt until 
December 12, and opportunity for the President to join with us in 
negotiating a balanced budget bill.
  Such a bill will include a permanent increase in the debt ceiling to 
accommodate the provisions of that bill. However, for the moment, we 
need to keep the pressure on the administration if we are to bring the 
differing views together and resolve this problem.
  The time for delay is passed. No more excuses. We must stop passing 
our generation's debt on to our children and our grandchildren. We must 
face facts and bring our budget into balance.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, in this bill, December 12 is the drop-
dead date for the President to come to the table and negotiate in good 
faith on a plan to balance the budget in 7 years by CBO numbers, and 
without tax increases.
  We are committed to do no less. It is our responsibility to our 
children and it has the support of 82 percent of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to protect the trust funds 
and vote to press on with the fight to balance the budget.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot of fancy language and a lot 
of fancy arguments, but let me try at the beginning to explain what is 
going on. This debate today should never have taken place, had the 
Republican leadership had any ability to lead. The voters gave them a 
majority in this House of Representatives, a substantial majority. We 
just saw it on the last vote.
  We are not delaying anything here. We are not postponing anything. 
This is just their inability to work in the Republican Party with 
themselves and get their act together and get legislation passed. They 
should have done this back in July. This is November 10.
  Why have they been so long? Well, you will have to judge for yourself 
on that.
  The piece of legislation we are actually debating here today and will 
vote on soon is still a piece of blackmail. It is an attempt to lure 
and to force the President to come and adopt their rather radical 
agenda, and he refuses to do so. It is an agenda that gives tax cuts to 
the very wealthy who have neither asked for them nor need them. It is 
an agenda that places the burden of balancing the budget on the sick, 
the aged, the children of America, the working poor, those least able 
to defend themselves or to support the sacrifices that need to be made 
to balance this budget.
  The Republican Party's priorities are simply wrong. The President 
recognizes that. In addition to that, there had been no leadership from 
the Republican Party to get the regular business of this House 
conducted. Here we are, a month and a half after the end of the last 
fiscal year. We have not passed the appropriations bills that are 
necessary to run this Government. Only three of the bills have ever 
left this Chamber and left the Senate and headed for the President's 
desk. There are nine more floating around out there in limbo somewhere 
on which the Republicans are fighting amongst themselves about the 
bill. We do not control the vote. They have got the votes. The American 
people put them in charge, and that trust has been severely violated by 
ineptness.
  So I regret that the bill that is here today and is the subject of 
the next vote is just another attempt to blackmail the President to 
come bargain with the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, and Mr. 
Dole, and yet they have not presented their own appropriations bills. 
They have not presented their own budget which they are still arguing 
over amongst themselves, and they are trying to place the blame on us.
   Mr. Speaker, that is the simple truth of all that is going on here 
today. Members are going to hear a lot of fancy rhetoric about saving 
the trust funds. Baloney. They know that is baloney. The only reason 
anybody has to raid the trust funds is to keep this Government from 
collapsing, from not paying its honest debts. That is all that is at 
stake today.
  Mr. SPEAKER, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from now are the debt 
junkies who for 40 years ran up trillions of dollars worth of debt and 
gave us the situation that we are now in and now are out complaining 
about the process. It is fascinating. They not only ran up trillions of 
dollars worth of debt, but they were the junkies that adopted what was 
called the Gephardt rule so that they put the entire debt of the United 
States on automatic pilot. So, anytime we had to have more debt, we 
simply passed and kind of deemed the debt to have been passed under the 
Gephardt rule.
  These debt junkies would not even bring bills like this to the floor 
because they did not want to go through the agony of raising debt, and 
the debt swelled by trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. 
And then what did we get from them? We got excuses: It is not our 
fault. Ronald Reagan made us do it.
  Now the excuses today on the floor: Oh my goodness, the process does 
not work the way we would like it to work. And so we now have a new 
excuse.
  Then when all the excuses were gone and when people began to 
recognize they were debt junkies, then what happened is they turned to 
gimmicks. You 

[[Page H 12107]]
have the Secretary of the Treasury out doing the PR gimmick here for 
several weeks trying to scare the markets. When that did not work, now 
what they have got is their newest gimmick. Their newest gimmick is to 
actually raid the trust funds, to raid the retirement trust funds of 
the United States, including as a potential the Social Security trust 
funds.
  The gentleman from Florida tells us that is not what is happening. 
Well, USA Today does not agree. In fact, USA Today this morning runs a 
headline that says, retirement accounts could be tapped to avert 
default. So it is very clear that the news media, the American people, 
everyone is now understanding that, if we do not pass this bill in the 
form we bring it here today, we are putting in jeopardy the trust fund 
accounts of the United States, that the Democrats, because they are 
debt junkies, are perfectly willing.
  Vote no more excuses, no more gimmicks. Pass this bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for a question. That is, has any Democrat 
proffered putting the Istook amendment, for instance, on the CR? We 
know that is the reason the CR is held up. What Democrat had anything 
to do with that? This is a fight between Republicans, not us.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman might want to check the CR 
when it comes out here later on. The Istook amendment will not be on 
it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Record will show that that is what has held it up. 
That is the reason we are here. I am glad that side has shown some 
leadership to tell the gentleman from Oklahoma he should not be holding 
this up.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body a number of 
years. I thought I had learned a few truisms. I thought there were 
certain things I could rely on. One of them was that this country 
never, never should default, that our debt is money spent, money owed, 
that the full faith and credit of the United States was involved.
  Yet this morning I read in some of the papers the financiers of Wall 
Street are saying it really is not going to be catastrophic if we 
default. These statements absolutely perplex me. Do these financiers 
think that the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, would never 
default, so they can make these statements? Are these financiers trying 
to ingratiate themselves to the leadership of this House?
  I do not know what they are trying to do. I only can say to these 
individuals, men and women on Wall Street, you have the investments in 
your hands, pension funds and mutual funds. You should know better than 
to say default is not going to be catastrophic.
  I stand here right now and say this House should be doing one thing, 
passing a clean debt ceiling. In the meantime, we could hammer out a 
budget that could get 218 votes.
  This Member would be perfectly willing and there are other Democratic 
Members who would join with Republican Members for a clean debt 
ceiling, and this should happen. Let us be clear. We are going to have 
a budget, and we are going to raise the debt ceiling. But I do caution 
those people who should know better. We should not even talk about 
default, let alone play about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Senate-passed debt ceiling 
extension. While I strongly support the Senate's action in dropping 
elimination of the Commerce Department, this bill is still overburdened 
with unrelated matters.
  What the House should be doing today is passing a clean temporary 
debt ceiling as an interim measure to prevent default while a balanced 
budget agreement can be hammered out.
  While it may be true that the majority cannot, in fact, pass a debt 
ceiling without conditions or riders, no one should lose sight of the 
fact that many Democrats, including this Member, would support a clean 
extension simply because the cost of default is too high. And the 
President has said he would sign one. Yesterday six former Treasury 
Secretaries sent a letter to the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader 
Dole asking for a clean debt ceiling.
  When all is said and done, the debt ceiling will be increased. We 
shouldn't hold the economy or average American families hostage to a 
partisan debate on a balanced budget. We should enact an extension in 
the debt ceiling immediately.
  Let's be clear, raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the 
current level of Government spending, and everything to do with 
financing our prior obligations--living up to our commitments. There is 
no doubt that the debt ceiling will be raised in the long run. Let's 
stop playing games and pass a bipartisan clean debt ceiling.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman has spoken to exactly what the bill is about, to 
permit the orderly management of the debt until December 12. There is 
nothing in this bill that says default. What it says is that on 
December 12 we will have a problem if the President will not come 
forward, exercise leadership and negotiate with this Congress for a 
balanced budget in 7 years by CBO numbers without tax increases.
  There is plenty of time for that to happen. The President has within 
his hands the ability to negotiate with us and to eliminate any 
possible threat of default, but he has yet to be forthcoming in this 
regard.
  The truly important thing for the future is to get this budget 
balanced. Canada has its problems today because it did not balance its 
budget. Sweden has its problems today because it did not balance its 
budget. We cannot continue to let these interest service charges creep 
up and up and up because they will ultimately be the culprit in default 
in the long run. We have plenty of opportunity to get this budget 
balanced, and we are determined to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. English], a respected member of the committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this debt limit extension, especially in view of the strong 
restrictions it includes against the raid of the Social Security trust 
fund assets.
  Three million people depend on Social Security each month to meet 
their basic living expenses. They paid for these benefits while they 
were working. They should not have to worry about whether their checks 
are going to be paid during a debt limit crisis or whether the assets 
of the trust funds will be gamed or raided in order to keep the 
Government running.
  Mr. Speaker, the Social Security trust funds held $483 billion in 
assets as of September 30. That is a huge and an alluring pot of money 
right now in this crisis. The bill we are considering maintains public 
confidence in Social Security. It prevents a repeat of what happened in 
1985 when the trust funds were disinvested to get around the debt 
limit. It makes it absolutely clear that these assets may not be used 
for any other purpose other than to pay Social Security benefits or 
related administrative costs.
  The bill also makes it clear that Social Security checks will be paid 
to seniors on time even during a debt limit crisis when a shutdown of 
the Government is being threatened.
  The administration claims it will not use Social Security assets to 
pay the bills, but the public record is littered with their zigs and 
zags on important public policy questions, as our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle know better than anyone. This bill protects 
Social Security from disinvestment and does so on a permanent basis. 
The law currently does not do that. This bill preserves the social 
compact between generations that Social Security represents.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleague on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, there is nothing you can do that will mask 
what you are doing here. Nothing.
  The Social Security argument is a complete sham. The gentleman was 
there when the Treasury Secretary assured, through his representatives, 
this country under no circumstances will touch Social Security. The 
gentleman got up here and made that argument.

[[Page H 12108]]

  It is a sham. Look, we are also talking about the debt. We could 
stand here and argue for hours who caused the debt. I was here during 
many, many sessions when we passed bills less than the Republican 
President asked. During the 1980's, the total amount that was spent was 
less than requested by Republican Presidents.
  That is not what the public wants to argue about or hear about. They 
are impatient with you. You are playing politics with their checkbooks. 
You are playing brinkmanship. It is not pressure. It is a pistol you 
are putting to the head of the presidency. And who will suffer if you 
succeed, if there is default? Those who have adjustable mortgages, 
those who have credit card payments to make. Your extremism is already 
seeping into the attitudes of the public, and that is why they reject 
this Republican Congress. The Speaker should not blame the freshmen.

                              {time}  1245

  He is the leader of that gang. He is the pied piper. He is going to 
lead his troops over the edge and take our colleagues with him, but the 
trouble is he will take the country, and all the taxpayers and the 
hard-working families with him, and that is why in the end our 
colleagues' brinksmanship will fail. It is a miserable tactic shrouded 
with miserable arguments. Turn down this miserable bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, if it is extremism to meet ones 
financial obligations, then there are extreme people on our side of the 
aisle. If it is extremism to pay one's debts, then we are extremists. 
If it is extremism to make Government accountable and responsible, then 
we are extremists.
  I chair the House Civil Service Committee. I have only done that for 
a few months, and let me tell my colleagues about the mess we 
inherited. As my colleagues know, we have approximately 39 Federal 
retirement programs, and Congress has raided every retirement cookie 
jar. Thirty-five of the thirty-nine Federal retirement programs are 
already raided. There are no funds in them. Two funds, the Federal 
employee retirement trust fund and the military trust fund have 
unfunded liability of over a trillion dollars, and that is not counted 
in the $1\1/2\ trillion national debt. So now they are telling us that 
retirement accounts are their next avenue of irresponsibility, and that 
is only part of the problem. We are paying $19.8 billion out of the 
Treasury to meet the current benefits for our Federal employees and 
another $24 billion every year to pay the interest on the money we 
stole from the account. So now they found one more account, one more 
bastion of irresponsibility, and I tell my colleagues that we cannot 
continue the funny bookkeeping that we have inherited.
  Even the President summed it up, and that is what this debate is all 
about. He said it: ``I taxed you too much and I cut too little.'' If we 
are going to run this country $67 billion more in debt for 34 days and 
make every man, woman, and child in this country pay for those 34 days 
another $269 just for that short period of time for that debt we are 
extending, then we should have fiscal responsibility, and we should end 
the ways of the past.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear. To the extent that 
there is any risk to our trust funds, to the extent that there is a 
risk as to whether we will honor our debt, to the extent that whether 
there is a risk as to whether we are able to continue essential 
services, that falls to the Republicans' failure to bring to this floor 
a clean extension of our debt ceiling, and let me explain the hypocrisy 
of the Republicans here. Their budget calls for an increase, an 
increase in our national debt authority of $600 billion. They have 
already approved it on the House floor. They have already approved it 
on the Senate floor. But we have not brought to the President an agreed 
budget that includes that $600 billion, so we do not have that 
authority here today.
  Now why do we not have that $600 billion additional authority? 
Because the Republicans have missed the deadline. The deadline was 
October 1 to get their budget passed and to the President. They missed 
that deadline, they missed it badly, and now we run up against the debt 
ceiling, and we are being asked to extend it by about one-tenth of the 
permanent amount that is in their budget, a little over $60 billion, 
and the Republicans say, ``Wait a minute. We want to put all types of 
conditions on that extension that aren't acceptable to the President.''
  Mr. Speaker, the President is not at fault that we have not met our 
deadlines. It is the Republican leadership's fault, and yet they are 
trying to use process here on attaching legislation that is wrong, that 
when they took the leadership of this House they said they would not 
do, and they are doing it here today, and it is wrong, and the 
Republicans are putting at risk the credit of this country. The 
Republicans are putting at risk our trust funds and our ability to pay 
the obligations of this country, and that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, we have said from our side of the aisle bring a clean 
debt extension and we will support it, but this bill is wrong. It 
should be defeated.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I would just like to 
state very briefly that I am going to vote for the temporary debt 
ceiling even though it does not contain the elimination of the 
Department of Commerce, which I think is a very key and important thing 
for us to do in producing a smaller, more limited, more focused Federal 
Government, and this is something that this House has already agreed to 
and voted for. We received assurances from the Senate leadership that 
they will push for the elimination of the Department of Commerce the 
next available opportunity this year, so I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this temporary debt ceiling as we continue to move forward and we 
do what the country is asking, and that is just a very simple thing of 
what everybody else has to do, and it is balance the budget. I sit here 
on this floor, and I listen to the debate, and it seems to me it is 
terribly harsh about something that we have been negligent in doing for 
so many years, and that is just simply balancing the budget, and I 
would urge the American people to look past the rhetoric and say, 
``Yes, you have got to do it. You have got to deliver, and you've got 
to deliver a balanced budget.'' This is a critical step to be able to 
accomplish that goal.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, actions being taken by this 
Congress are a frontal attack on Medicare. By continuing to insist on a 
short-term debt increase that ties the hands of the President, Congress 
is putting the U.S. Government and its good name at risk.
  Repeatedly, we have heard that the House passed budget would protect 
and save Medicare. Well, the actions taken here the last few days put 
Medicare at great risk.
  Medicare does not need to be put at risk or even involved in this 
debate. The solution is simple. Bring a clean debt extension to the 
floor.
  This legislation includes a payment priority system, which is nothing 
but an unnecessary political ploy. And yes, this ploy can harm 
Medicare. The reason for this scheme is to protect Social Security. 
Social Security is already protected. The Social Security trust funds 
will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of 
benefits to Social Security recipients.
  Medicare should be protected. If Treasury is forced to prioritize 
payments, the nonpriority payments such as Medicare will not be paid. 
Why are we pulling the rug out from under seniors? They rely on 
Medicare and they expect payments to be made.
  If you really want to save and protect Medicare, you will pass a 
clean debt extension.
  Isn't it ironic that we are here on Veterans Day and we are debating 
legislation that could result in the failure of benefits being paid to 
veterans.
  The debt ceiling legislation before us plays a dangerous game that is 
deadly to seniors. This legislation will put the U.S. Government in 
default if the President does not sign the budget.
  We all know very well that the President cannot sign this budget. 
Congress 

[[Page H 12109]]
is way behind. The budget conference has not had one public session. 
Conferees on my side of the aisle are waiting to be contacted. Over 
half the 13 annual appropriations bills have not been sent to the 
President.
  The Republicans are putting Medicare at extreme risk. This 
legislation will put the United States into default. Once the 
Government defaults, Medicare benefits will not be paid.
  Treasury has been acting responsibly and already taken steps to avoid 
default, because of Congress' failure to pass a debt limit increase.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am just a freshman that came here this 
year, but as somebody who served in local government and was close to 
the people for over 20 years as a representative, the citizens kept 
asking, ``Why can't Washington produce a balanced budget,'' and now I 
understand after I have been here why Washington has not been able to 
do it, because there are always good excuses for voting no against a 
balanced budget, there is always some detail that is more important 
than balancing the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to recognize that we are talking 
about something that everybody talks about but are not willing to do. I 
will not yield at this time, but, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to 
be able to celebrate with my daughter her birthday this week, and she 
would not know and does not know what a balanced budget means to her 
future, but there are people across this country that have children 
that are going to be moving into the market at the beginning of the 
next century, and there are children that are going to be graduating 
from high school in the year 2003, like my Briana and my Patrick, and 
all I ask this body to do is find reasons to say yes so their 
graduation present, Mr. Speaker, can be a balanced budget for their 
future.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray] that this is not a balanced budget. Our 
colleagues are borrowing more money because they are not balancing the 
budget.
  Now I love going home just as much as my colleague loves going home, 
but I think it is more important to stay here and balance the budget 
than to borrow more money.
  When I was in the gentleman's shoes exactly 6 years ago right now, I 
got a call from the Bush White House, and they asked me to vote for a 
one-time extension to the debt, and I honored then President Bush's 
request.
  Dog bit me once, dog's fault. Dog bites me twice, it is my fault. I 
will not vote again to raise the debt limit because this is not a 
balanced budget. If it was balanced, we would not be borrowing more 
money.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would say I would rather stay here this 
week and this month to have a balanced budget than to go to all the 
birthday parties in the world.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means for yielding this time to me, and I want to 
tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in fact I would be 
happy to have a colloquy about this particular issue, this debate is 
all about balancing the Federal budget, try, as you might, to obscure 
it with discussion about the content of the continuing resolution or, 
for that matter, the debt ceiling increase, and I want to point out to 
the American people that only 72 Democrats, 72 out of 199, voted for a 
balanced budget when the Democratic substitute was offered on this 
floor by the so-called Blue Dog Coalition. In fact the Democrat 
minority leader, the Democrat minority whip, both voted against the 
Democrat version of a balanced budget. The majority of Members speaking 
over there today have voted against the balanced budget and have yet to 
vote for a balanced budget in this Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am, as the gentleman knows, one of those 
Democrats that voted for a balanced budget amendment, voted for the 
Stenholm budget, voted for the coalition balanced budget amendment 
which gets us to the balanced budget by 2002 and, in fact, cuts more 
money, as my colleague knows, faster than the Republican alternative.
  Having said that, I do not believe this is a responsible thing for us 
to do, to put at risk the credit of the United States when we clearly 
know we do not have agreement between the President and ourselves. 
However, we do have agreement on getting to a balanced budget by the 
President and ourselves. Once we pass the appropriation bills, we will 
do that.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, am one of those who voted to balance our budget 
when that recently came before this House. Yesterday we offered a 
motion to recommit that was very simple. It would have altered the debt 
limit provided for by 30 days. It would have provided a window that 
would say that from the time the reconciliation bill hits the 
President's desk until we reach the debt ceiling limit, there would be 
a 30-day period in which we could work in a bipartisan way to develop a 
plan that will balance the Federal budget and would avoid a default by 
the Federal Government.
  It was a clean motion. It was written on a single piece of paper. It 
was written without any kind of partisan distractions. It was said by 
my friends on the other side that our motion could be an indefinite 
extension of the debt. Let us be clear, the only way that motion could 
allow for an indefinite extension of the debt limit is if the majority 
in the Congress failed to present the President with a reconciliation 
bill. That is the only way, period.
  It was also said that our motion would somehow allow the Treasury 
Department to raid the Social Security trust funds during this period. 
This just is not true. The Treasury has already stated in clear and 
certain terms that it will not touch the Social Security trust fund in 
its effort to manage the Federal debt.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, we 
could end this controversy right here and now by rejecting this debt 
limit bill, and send to the other body the motion to recommit that we 
took up yesterday instead. We could pass this clean language and not 
risk a Presidential veto. We could give a great Christmas present to 
the American people, one that I believe they had on the very top of 
their list last November. That is, Democrats and Republicans, working 
together in a bipartisan fashion, passing a reconciliation bill which 
balances the Federal budget without partisan rancor and without placing 
the creditworthiness of this country at risk.
  Vote against this bill. Let us pass a clean bill and get on with the 
business of balancing our budget.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get involved in this 
discussion today, but after a phone call from a constituent this 
morning, concerning whether or not she should remove her savings from 
Treasury notes and Treasury bonds and CD's, it suddenly occurred to me 
that this game that we are playing today is one that could be very 
harmful to a lot of unintended people.
  It is true, December 12, we could be doing this between now and then. 
My fear is that we have spent 314 days getting us nowhere. We have 300 
votes on this floor to balance the budget next week. The argument that 
this is required to get us to a balanced budget is purely political. We 
have the votes. It seems to me that we are missing something, but the 
people are not. We are missing it on the floor, particularly 

[[Page H 12110]]
with my friends on this side. We have not done our work. The Congress 
has not, in a bipartisan way, delivered to the President 13 
appropriation bills and a reconciliation bill so that the President can 
say whether he is for or against it.
  Though some will say, ``He should be weighing in already,'' I am on 
the conference, I have not been consulted 1 second. I got a call from 
the president of the largest farm organization in Texas yesterday 
asking me, ``Charlie, I hear we are getting close to a farm bill. What 
is in it?'' I say, ``Mr. Stallman, I have no idea.'' I confronted the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture this morning an asked him, 
``What is going on?'' And he said, ``Charlie, if I knew, you would be 
the first to know if you would just ask me.'' Committee chairmen do not 
know what is in the bills that are coming before us in this heated 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we could get away from some of this 
political rhetoric that is now occurring. If I have misspoken, and I 
would be happy to yield to any of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, if I have said anything; I would be glad to have a discussion, 
as we had between the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] just a moment ago. But it seems 
to me that we are playing an unneeded political game, risking the good 
faith and credit of the United States in order to prove a political 
point. It seems to me the risk is not worth it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I simply want to point out that the President apparently, based on 
his recent statements, has come around to the belief that we can in 
fact balance the budget in 7 years. As the gentleman well knows, there 
is language in this debt ceiling increase, or debt ceiling extension 
legislation, that effectively commits the President to balancing the 
budget in 7 years, based on a CBO-certified plan.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. speaker, if I could reclaim my time, that is 
totally irrelevant to the discussion today. What we should do today is 
do our work, and then get on with the negotiations. That is irrelevant.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, every Republican has voted for a debt ceiling 
extension to $5.5 trillion until September 1997. What we need to do is 
to simply pull that out of the reconciliation bill, pass it, and keep 
this Government on an even keel. There is no discussion about where the 
debt ought to be lifted to. It should be lifted to $5.5 trillion until 
September 1997. Every single Republican has agreed with that.
  The problem is that you have added additional very harmful provisions 
within this debt ceiling bill. I want to address these. These 
provisions were enacted by President Reagan in 1987. That is the last 
time we had the most serious debt ceiling crisis. President Reagan 
signed into law provisions that would make sure that our financial 
markets would not collapse, that we would not go through the same kind 
of thing we went through back in the 1980's, largely because of the tax 
cuts that ultimately created a grossly unbalanced budget. I am not 
going to go into the reasons for that. The point is we figured out how 
to correct it and not let it happen again.
  This debt ceiling extension takes away those provisions. There is an 
article in the Post today. It says: ``Financial analysts say the United 
States is unlikely to default,'' and it talks about how blase they all 
are. The reason they are is because they are assuming that those 
provisions enacted in 1987 are still law; in other words, we can borrow 
from other trust funds so as to get us by a crisis. Then there is a law 
that requires that that money be paid back to those trust funds.
  This debt ceiling bill repeals those provisions. That is why it has 
to be defeated. That is why it has to be vetoed. One of those laws says 
that we can go into the civil service retirement trust fund and borrow 
that money, only on condition that it legally has to be repaid. We 
cannot do that under this law. In fact, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Civil Service wrote to the Federal Retirement Thrift 
Board, knowing that they are nonpartisan, there are a number of 
Republicans on it, and I assume that he thought he would get support 
for this bill.
  They wrote back, and I am glad he is coming to the floor, and they 
said that if this debt ceiling bill is passed as currently written, 
Federal employees will lose $3.5 million a day from their fund, because 
this debt ceiling bill does not allow us to repay that fund. It takes 
away these provisions that were designed to get us past this crisis. 
That is the problem.
  Another thing it does, incidentally, and I think we ought to mention 
this, because we are honoring Veterans Day, it does not even allow us 
to pay veterans benefits if it pushes us into this kind of crisis 
situation.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to address my words to the person, I 
believe, in this country who has worked the hardest for the last 2 
years to bring our economy to the great economic conditions that we 
have today. That is our President of the United States, Bill Clinton. I 
also want to remind everybody that he is a very conscientious person 
that thinks great things about this country and how well this country 
can do. What the Republican leadership is now proposing to do is to put 
him on the hot spot, to say, ``If you veto this, then we may have a 
default in our bonds, in our Treasury notes, and the economy may go to 
blazes.''
  Mr. President, I want to tell you that I stand here today urging you 
to veto this lousy bill. I know, Mr. President, that you have said you 
would sign a clean, no-strings-attached, debt limit bill, that you 
would sign one even for a short period of time. But that is not what 
you are being faced with. No, the Republican leadership, led by his 
imperial majesty, Speaker Gingrich, has decided that they are going to 
do a little blackmail, extortion, play the game of chicken. That is 
what the Speaker has brought us to.
  I am not voting for it. No way. I feel too much for this great 
country of ours, like our President. I would not want to bring us to 
this brink of disaster for this country, just to prove a point that you 
are going to have to sign other bills that have been attached onto the 
debt limit bill.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said on this floor about what goes on 
back home. Back home, for years I have heard people complain about 
putting extraneous bills on top of other bills that do not belong on 
there. That is just what we have here today. That is just what this is, 
Mr. Speaker; nothing more, nothing less. If the President will sign a 
straight debt limit bill, why do we not send him a straight debt limit 
bill?
  Because you do not want to do that. You want to try and make him sign 
a bill with a whole bunch of extraneous stuff on it that has nothing to 
do with a debt limit, has nothing to do with a balanced budget, in 
order to try to embarrass him. That is all it is, pure politics. You 
are playing politics with the greatness of this country. I do not know 
if you realize it or not, but we could have a lot of harm done to this 
country and the people of it simply because you want to play politics. 
Mr. President, veto the bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let us call it the way it is. Let us stop the charade 
here. What is going on here is Presidential politics and cheap politics 
at its worst. The attempt to embarrass the President of the United 
States, or to blackmail the President of the United States, is really 
not worthy of this great body.
  If the Republican leadership were indeed serious about tackling the 
problem with the debt-limit extension, or the continuing resolution, we 
would be voting on clean bills, stripped down bills today that would do 
exactly that. 

[[Page H 12111]]
No one disagrees with the fact that the debt limit has to be extended, 
or that there needs to be a continuing resolution, but the attempt to 
junk it up, to pump it up with all kinds of things that do not belong 
in the bill to push the continued extreme Republican agenda is really 
not worthy of this institution.
  Let me say to my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle 
that a couple of polls came out today. The polls show that the American 
people have finally caught on to the Republican shell game, to the 
irresponsible shell game. Fifty-nine percent is the President's 
approval rating, the highest in a year and a half.
  Sixty percent of the American people say that the President ought to 
veto the extreme Republican budget. In a generic question about whom 
would you vote for for Congress, Democrats or Republicans, the American 
people chose Democrats by a total of 50 to 44 percent.
  The American people are not fools. The American people know where to 
point the finger if the Government should shut down. It is totally 
irresponsible to even be playing this game of brinksmanship. Let us sit 
down, put our heads together, work out a budget, work out differences 
on issues, but let us not hold America hostage. Let us not hold this 
debt-limit extension hostage, or the continuing resolution hostage. Let 
us have some responsibility. Vote no on this miserable bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues of the House, it is true 
that Republicans on three occasions have unanimously voted to up the 
debt limit to $5.5 trillion through September 1997. That is not the 
issue here. The issue is to try to jam the President of the United 
States, as I have said before.
  Now, let me read a letter dated November 9, 1995, just 2 days ago. 
This is not a partisan issue. I quote from that letter:

       While we may have differing views on the merits of the 
     various issues being raised in the budget debate, we share 
     the strong view that the debt limit should not be, should not 
     be, should not be, embroiled in that debate. We urge that 
     prompt action be taken to either raise the debt limit 
     permanently to a level that would accommodate either of the 
     budgets being proposed, or that a sufficient short-term 
     increase be enacted to allow the debate over priorities to 
     proceed in an orderly manner without impairing market 
     confidence in our Nation's commitment to discharge its 
     obligations.

  Who signed that letter? Secretary Bentsen, Secretary under Clinton. 
Secretary Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury under Carter. Secretary 
George Shultz, Secretary of Labor and Secretary of the Treasury under 
Nixon and Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan. Secretary G. William 
Miller, Secretary of the Treasury under Carter. William E. Simon, 
Secretary of the Treasury under President Nixon and President Ford; and 
Secretary Fowler, Secretary under President Johnson.
  In a letter dated June 28, 1990, from Secretary Brady, he said, ``I 
urge the Congress to act in a timely manner on a debt limit increase in 
order,'' he said, ``to avert a default with its adverse consequences on 
domestic and international confidence and trust in the United States.''
  Be responsible. Reject this bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, again, let us just be honest about what is going on 
here. We on the Democratic side are sort of innocent bystanders. What 
is going on is that Republicans cannot agree with Republicans. You have 
some people in this House, about 80, who do not care if we default, who 
brought in four experts to say, default does not matter, despite the 
fact that everybody else knows that you are playing with fire. Instead, 
they want to use the debt ceiling as a vehicle for their extremist 
ideology.
  First, as has been said, the American people do not buy that 
ideology, and that is why they need the debt ceiling, because they 
cannot do it alone. A stand-alone bill will never pass. But second, it 
is playing with fire. The Senate realized you were playing with fire, 
House Republicans; that is why they stripped the bill of so many 
things.
  Many on your side realize you are playing with fire. Now, get with 
it. Pass a clean debt ceiling, and let us have the ideological debates 
on substantive bills where they should be.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, enough has already been said about this. This is an 
attempt to blackmail the President, to come bargain with the gentleman 
from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, and Mr. Dole, who have failed to get the 
necessary budget documents to him. They should have been there months 
ago. Yet they are here complaining, Mr. President, come bargain with 
us, lead us out of this swamp that we have gotten ourselves in.
  I am for a debt ceiling increase. Every Republican in this Congress 
has voted, probably three times already this year, to increase the debt 
ceiling to $5.5 trillion which will take us into 1997. This whole 
debate today is just a charade. If they would just do as they are 
supposed to do and what they are required to do, all of this could be 
done. The Government would not have to be closed down. They are trying 
to hold a pistol to the President's head to make him bargain, and they 
are not even ready to bargain. They have not even presented their own 
chips on all of this.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
shall not consume that much time, and I know that that will come as a 
relief to everybody on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points to my colleagues 
today. We have heard that this is playing political games, that this is 
just partisan politics. We are taking the political easy way out. None 
of us believes that. Had it been politically easy, it would have been 
done years ago.
  Balancing this budget is not easy. It is one of the most difficult 
things that this Congress has had to come to grips with in the 25 years 
that I have been here. The politics, if there is any, is to continue to 
sweep under the rug until after the next election the tough decisions. 
I personally do not think that is good enough for my children and my 
grandchildren.
  It has been said what we are doing is wrong. What is wrong about 
trying to get to a balanced budget, a real balanced budget? By CBO 
numbers, the real numbers, the tough numbers, we are shooting real 
bullets when we talk about balancing the budget in 7 years by CBO 
numbers. We hear the hyperbole and the extreme rhetoric which I find 
frankly offensive and inappropriate.
  When we are called terrorists, particularly coming on the heels of 
that tragic event that occurred in Israel, and the people of Israel 
know the meaning of the world terrorist, and that offensive rhetoric 
has been hurled by the other side at us. Early in the year as we moved 
toward trying to make these tough decisions, to be called Nazis and 
Hitler is highly offensive to me, and inappropriate, and does not 
belong out of the mouth of a Member of this Congress.
  But we move on in this very, very difficult job, and I understand 
that this is not Democrat or Republican. When children are born into 
the world today, they are not born as Democrats or Republicans. As they 
grow up, they make the decision in which party they wish to identify, 
or perhaps no party at all. But each one of them is the recipient of 
the curse that we place on their heads by refusing to take the tough 
road of a balanced budget. I do commend my colleagues on the Democrat 
side who have been willing to vote for a tough balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we should act as Americans concerned for the future. I 
have said earlier, and I am going to say it again, I had a grandson 
last week. I am very proud of that little fellow, but he came into this 
world with an obligation of $187,000 on his head to pay the interest on 
this existing national debt for the rest of his life. We should not 
elevate that one dollar. Unfortunately, the glidepath to get into 
balance where we do not have to borrow any more will cause us to borrow 
some additional money. 

[[Page H 12112]]


  As the gentleman from Virginia said, we voted for $5.5 trillion debt 
ceiling increase, and that is right. But I say to my friend from 
Virginia, it was coupled with a balanced budget by the year 2002 by CBO 
numbers. And yes, we are applying the pressure by our drop-dead 
December 12 date. But that pressure does not apply just to the 
president; it applies to us in the Congress. Both of us are being put 
under pressure to come together and to resolve the most difficult thing 
that we have undertaken in the 25 years that I have been in the 
Congress of the United States.
  We know, every one of us who has been in any legislative body, 
whether it is in the State of whether it is here, we will not make the 
tough decisions until we are forced against the wall to do it. That has 
been a problem in every democracy. Socrates, 400 years before Christ, 
said that, when the masses of the people find they can vote themselves 
prosperity out of the public Treasury, democracy is no longer possible. 
Democracies have this frailty.
  We must find a way to apply even pressure to the White House and to 
the Congress to force us together at the bargaining table. I say to 
Members, my friends on both sides of the aisle, that a month is enough. 
We have waited long enough. We know all of the pieces in the puzzle. 
All we have to do is sit down and negotiate a balanced budget by CBO 
numbers in 7 years without new taxes.
  We invite the President to come and do this in good faith, but we 
will never resolve this problem unless the Congress and the President 
come together. I say to my friend from Texas, it is not just 
bipartisanship in the Congress, it is the President coming to join with 
the Congress. We all know what happened this year. He started the year 
with his budget.
  In our committee, and the members of our committee know this, his 
Secretary said a balanced budget is unimportant. We are not going to 
balance a budget. It is unimportant. Then he finally came around and 
said, well, I cannot be for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. 
Show me your plan, you cannot do it. And we did it. I say, to the 
credit of the Democrats who voted for their alternative balanced 
budget, they did it too. But the President did not think we could do it 
in the Congress.
  Then, when he saw we could do it, he came back and he said, well, I 
will be for a 10-year balanced budget by my OMB numbers, not CBO 
numbers. And yet he stood right here at this point and told the 
Congress on February 17, 1993, that the CBO numbers were the only real 
numbers, and that the American people were entitled to know that we 
worked off of the same numbers. But now he has gone back to the rosy 
scenario on the stage with OMB. He does not balance the budget by CBO 
numbers in 10 years under OMB. He leaves $200 billion a year in 
deficit. But that is the last proposal we have seen from the President.
  Mr. President, please, please, come with us, and work with us to get 
this job done. And yes, the pressure is on both of us. We can do it by 
December 12. This is not game playing, this is conscientious effort to 
force a resolution for the most historic thing that we can do for our 
children and their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 262, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 185, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 785]

                               YEAS--219

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     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
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     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
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Berman
     Boucher
     Buyer
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Fields (LA)
     Goodling
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lewis (CA)
     Martinez
     McHugh
     Owens
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Quillen
     Shuster
     Spratt
     Studds
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H 12113]]


                              {time}  1349

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Young of Florida for, with Mr. Waxman against.
       Mr. Quillen for, with Ms. Kaptur against.
       Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida 
     against.

  Mr. GILMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________