[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 194 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14182-H14204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2099, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 291

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the further conference report to 
     accompany, and the amendment reported from conference in 
     disagreement on, the bill (H.R. 2099) making appropriations 
     for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration, and against the motion printed in the joint 
     explanatory statement of the committee of conference to 
     dispose of the amendment of the Senate numbered 63, are 
     waived. The conference report, the amendment reported in 
     disagreement, and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its final adoption without intervening motion 
     except debate pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule XXVIII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only. 

[[Page H 14183]]

  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 291 allows for the consideration of the 
further conference report to accompany H.R. 2099, making appropriations 
for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and various independent agencies.

  In my opinion, this is probably the most important of all of the 
appropriation bills. It provides the money required to meet the needs 
of our veterans and also provides the funding necessary to ensure 
adequate housing for the needy, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. 
Members will recall that the House voted to recommit this conference 
report on November 29, and I hope we got it right this time.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration, and against the motion to dispose of Senate 
amendment No. 63 as printed in the joint explanatory statement of the 
committee of conference.
  Finally, the rule provides that if the conference report is adopted, 
then the motion printed in the joint statement of managers to recede 
and concur in Senate Amendment 63 with an amendment shall be debatable 
for 1 hour. Senate amendment 63 was reported in technical disagreement, 
and pertains to the funding necessary to carry out the orderly 
termination of programs and activities under the National and Community 
Service Act of 1990.
  Mr. Speaker, this is basically the same conference report with 
various technical changes recommended to improve the bill.
  Those who rely on veterans benefits and housing assistance should not 
have to go through the anxiety of wondering whether or not their 
benefits will be reduced or discontinued. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and to support this conference report.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for 
yielding the customary one-half hour of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this, the second rule that has been 
reported to provide for the consideration of the conference report on 
the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill. We oppose just as strongly the conference 
report itself that the rule would make in order.
  Even though the House voted on November 29 to recommit the conference 
report, ostensibly because of cuts in funding for veterans programs, it 
was clear at the time that many Members were just as concerned about 
the unprecedented cuts included in this bill in spending for the 
environment and for housing.
  Interestingly, the new conference agreement is virtually identical to 
the one the House voted to recommit. In fact, no changes were made in 
veterans funding, as the recommittal motion demanded. What the 
conferees did was take this opportunity to make so-called technical 
corrections, including one that weakens HUD's antiredlining 
regulations.
  We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the conferees not only did not 
respond to the wishes of the House, but also took advantage of the 
recommittal to further weaken our Nation's commitment to fair housing 
laws.
  We would not be in this position at all if the legislation before us 
did not so flagrantly violate the rules of the House. As has been the 
case for all the rules for considering this legislation, the one before 
us today sanctions flagrant and wholesale violations of the House rule 
that prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. By protecting the 
major and substantive policy changes contained in the bill, it 
continues the objectionable trend that has developed this year of 
allowing the Committee on Appropriations to subvert the authorizing 
committee process.
  When we Democrats were in the majority and proposed rules that 
protected by waivers even the most minor and technical provisions, our 
Republican colleagues protested loudly and vehemently. Had we attempted 
to protect the kind of major policy changes contained in this 
appropriations bill, you would have screamed in indignation, and you 
would have been right to have done so.
  We have tried to be patient with the majority's frequent, flagrant, 
and unwarranted waivers of rule XXI, the prohibition on legislation in 
an appropriations bill, that have been contained in the rules for 
consideration of appropriations bills this year. We recognize from our 
years of being in the majority it is nearly always impossible to avoid 
all violations of rule XXI in an appropriations bill.
  Unfortunately, however, the waiver provided in this bill goes far 
beyond the bounds of what can reasonably be considered legitimate or 
appropriate. While the conference agreement is less draconian than the 
House-passed bill, the waiver still sanctions the Committee on 
Appropriations' rewriting of environmental and housing laws. It 
sanctions the Committee on Appropriations' usurpation of the function 
of the authorizing committees, which is an egregious misuse of the 
waiver.
  It has become increasingly clear that the new chairmen of the 
authorizing committees are willing to cede their responsibilities to 
the Committee on Appropriations. They should, rather, defend the 
integrity of the legislative process by insisting on their committees' 
right to make major policy changes the way they should be made, after 
following the deliberative committee process of hearings and full 
consideration of authorization legislation.
  Indeed, the Committee on Rules itself should be disturbed about the 
precedents that are being set. Instead, the Committee on Rules is 
acquiescing to this subversion of an open and accountable committee 
process. As the history of this bill demonstrates, many of these policy 
revisions would have been unable to withstand the scrutiny of full 
scale debate.
  Despite the fact the conferees made improvements in the radical bill 
originally approved by the House, we are still faced with legislation 
making drastic follow policy changes that will seriously affect 
virtually all of our citizens. Consider what this bill does to the 
environment. For example, it slashes funds for environmental protection 
by a unprecedented 21 percent. These cuts would cripple EPA's 
enforcement efforts, seriously weakening the implementation of 
virtually every environmental law, including the Clean Air Act, the 
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the law regulating 
the use of pesticides. It would limit EPA's authority to initiate 
cleanups at new Superfund sites.
  In addition, five legislative provisions remain in the bill, language 
protected by this rule. Many of the other controversial 17 riders 
approved by the House have simply been shifted to report language, 
where they are less visible, but where they still pose an equally 
serious threat to public health.
  The riders retained in legislative language include provisions 
barring EPA oversight of wetlands policy, limiting EPA authority to 
list new hazardous waste sites for cleanup under the Superfund law, and 
barring EPA from issuing a new standard to protect the public from 
contamination of drinking water by radon. These are changes that hamper 
the EPA's ability to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
  When the funding cuts and legislative changes contained in this bill 
are combined with the changes to environmental policy made in other 
bills the House has passed this year, including the Clean Water Act 
revision and the so-called regulatory reform bills, this effort amounts 
to nothing less than a full scale assault on the environmental 
protection laws that have served our Nation so well, and which many of 
us believe need to be strengthened, not weakened and not repealed.
  The other area that is cut drastically by this conference report is 
housing, where funding is reduced by 21 percent or $4 billion from this 
year's level. Homeless programs are cut by 27 percent. Here, too, the 
funding cuts in the legislative changes in the bill amount to 
significant changes in housing policy, resulting in a dramatic shift in 
the course of our Nation's commitment to affordable and accessible 
housing for all our citizens.
  For example, this bill means that no new public housing will be 
funded, even though the number of families who need help continues to 
grow each year. If all that were not enough, this legislation also 
eliminates all funding for a number of programs, including the 

[[Page H 14184]]
President's AmeriCorps National Service Program, the Community 
Development Bank Initiative, the FDIC Affordable Housing Program, and 
the Office of Consumer Affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this conference report represent the 
misguided budget priorities of the Republican majority. Those 
priorities are forcing Congress to make deep cuts in domestic programs 
in order to pay for unnecessary increases in defense spending, 
including $7 billion for more weaponry than the Defense Department 
requested, and for tax cuts that will mainly benefit the wealthiest 
among us.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this is a bad rule for an unworthy bill. It 
protects egregious violations of our rule prohibiting legislating in an 
appropriations bill, and it does so in order to allow Congress to make 
damaging changes to environmental and housing laws. The rule should be 
defeated.
  The President has, and properly so, vowed to veto the bill, because 
it does not uphold the values so important to the American people. What 
we should do is to send this bill back to conference today, where the 
conferees should take seriously the need to make substantive changes in 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and on the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member on the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, why are we considering this bill today?
  Just last Wednesday, by a vote of 216 to 208 the House wisely 
recommitted this horrible VA/HUD conference report because it made too 
many cuts in veterans health benefits.
  So if the bill is so bad, why is it here again? If a majority of the 
House couldn't bring themselves to vote for this bill last week what's 
going to make them vote for it this week?
  I had hoped the conferees would have gotten rid of these unfair 
veterans cuts but the only changes to this bill are a few technical 
changes and a few new commas and semicolons.
  This bill is nearly exactly the same bill that was carried out of 
here in a coffin last week.
  My guess is that the only difference between last week's bill and 
this week's bill is a few broken arms. Otherwise I can see no reason 
why anyone would support this dreadful bill.
  And, it doesn't stop with veterans health cuts. This bill still guts 
Federal safeguards that protect our air, water, land, and public health 
from toxic pollution. It is a dangerous attack on American families, 
and American veterans, and it belongs in the trash can. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat this bill, again. 
Veterans need their health care this week just as much as they needed 
it last week.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule on a bad bill. It should 
be rejected. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], for making this time available.
  The bill has not been changed. The Wall Street Journal says it. What 
does it say? It says that the House Republican leadership determined to 
overcome an embarrassing loss last week and will try again to pass a 
compromise $80.6 spending bill, but without restoring additional funds 
for veterans medical care. It goes on to say that new construction 
funds will be cut back by the GOP.
  But this is where the leadership hopes to get votes, by adding 
language that raises the hopes of additional medical clinics in the 
home district of three lawmakers, who it goes on to name.
  I think that is wonderful. But what we really need is a bill which is 
fair and decent and which takes care of the veterans. I would point out 
to my colleagues that there is not a new nickel in this bill for 
veterans care. The same abuses with regard to the environment are 
there, the same improper legislation in an appropriations bill is 
there.
  Remember, the bill last week was overwhelmingly rejected by this 
body, and the reason was that it did not provide adequate care to 
American veterans. Better than 1 million veterans will not be getting 
care and better than 40 facilities will close which are now providing 
health care to veterans because of this bill and budget. Also better 
than 5,000 people who are providing health care to American veterans 
will lose their job at VA under this bill.
  The quality of care for American veterans will continue to erode to 
satisfy my Republican colleagues' desire to balance the budget at the 
expense of the poor, the unfortunate, and the veterans.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on what the 
gentleman from California said, and that is that the rule should be 
defeated with regard to this conference report, if only because we have 
continued to have this battle over authorizing language or riders in 
the bill.
  As you know, on two occasions in this House, we have asked and we 
have voted to remove the antienvironmental riders that apply to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. Yet we still have some of 
them in the bill. We have the rider that deals with wetlands that 
essentially guts the EPA's ability to veto a bad wetlands decision. We 
also have the rider that says that no Superfund sites can be added to 
the national priority list. And many of the 17 riders that we voted 
against on the floor of this House twice still exist in the report 
language of the bill.
  If I could just talk about the two provisions that remain in the 
statute itself, one with regard to the Superfund Program. The Superfund 
Program is actually cut back in this legislation by about 19 percent. 
If no new sites can be added, it really cripples, if you will, the 
efforts to the EPA when they find hazardous material and contaminated 
hazardous sites. When they reach a certain level that they should be 
added by the Superfund, all of a sudden they cannot be considered and 
cleaned up pursuant to the Federal program.
  When you talk about wetlands protection, particularly from my home 
State of New Jersey, this is a very serious problem in areas which are 
rapidly developing. The EPA has not traditionally exercised its 
authority on wetlands that much.

                              {time}  1215

  They are very discreet, I would say, in exercising their veto over 
the Army Corps of Engineers' actions. So it makes absolutely no sense 
to say in this appropriations bill, in this conference report, that 
EPA's ability to deal with wetlands protection is simply taken away.
  Overall, the bill continues this onward thrust to dismantled our 
ability to protect the environment. The cuts in the EPA are around 20 
percent overall. The cuts in enforcement are 25 percent. I have said 
over and over gain, if we cannot enforce good environmental laws, what 
is the use of even having them. And I am afraid that is what this is 
all about. There are many people here who simply do not want to see our 
environmental laws enforced, so they go, in a roundabout way, to make 
sure they cannot be enforced, to make sure the polluters are able to do 
their thing, so to speak, by cutting back on enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to go. We should defeated the rule 
and we should also defeat the conference report.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the House Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to acknowledge the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], a good marine, back there.
  Mr. Speaker, I tend to get excited and upset when I see political 
shenanigans going on around here. I was very proud to have served in 
the U.S. Marine Corps. I was very proud to have been elected to come to 
this body 18 years ago. I was very proud to have served on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 10 years and serve as the ranking 
Republican on that committee.
  I would like to invite all my colleagues to come up to my Saratoga 
office, where I have a wall half as wide as this room here full of 
plaques from every major veterans organization in America, national 
veterans' organizations, talking about how much we have done for the 
veterans of this Nation.

[[Page H 14185]]

  Then I see this kind of shenanigans on the floor here where somebody 
comes on the floor and they say we are not providing enough money for 
veterans. These same people that are saying this, and this is why I get 
so exasperated, are people that voted against peace through strength 
day in and day out, year in and year out, when we were trying to bring 
down the Iron Curtain and stop the spread of international communism 
around this world. These same people voted against the defense budget 
day in and day out. They voted against contra aid in Central America 
when we were trying to stop the spread of communism right here in this 
hemisphere. They voted against the deployment of intermediate range 
missiles, which was finally what really brought the Soviet Union to 
their knees. They voted against aid to El Salvador. They voted against 
every single defense budget that I can recall, even when we had an 
effort to try to strengthen the CIA.
  All these so-called veterans supporters were voting against all of 
these things, and yet they have the gall to come on this floor here 
today and say we are not spending enough money for the veterans.
  Upstairs, Mr. Speaker, in the Committee on Rules, when they made 
these same kind of ridiculous arguments, we pointed out to them that in 
this appropriation bill, which provides for the funding for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and NASA, 
and a myriad of other agencies and bureaus, we pointed out that almost 
every one of them were being cut. I think maybe every one of them were 
being cut except for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Sonny Montgomery, from the other 
side of the aisle, the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee today, and one of the most standup men I know, he and I and 
the gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump and the gentleman from 
California, Jerry Lewis, and others fought to get a level of funding 
for the medical care delivery system, that part of the budget, up to 
about $600 million, over a half billion dollars, and we succeeded. And, 
oh, how the liberals complained because we were cutting housing and we 
were cutting the EPA.
  We just heard a little of it down here on the floor a minute ago, 
cutting NASA, cutting all these other sundry agencies. Well, up in the 
Committee on Rules I made the offer. As my friends know, we lost. We 
could not maintain that whole $600 million in additional spending when 
everything else is being cut and finally had to settle for about $400 
million. But that is almost a half billion dollars more than last year. 
I said, I will make this offer. Where do we want to take it out of the 
rest of this budget, because that is where it has to come from? Do we 
want to take it out of housing? Oh, no, we cannot take it out 
of housing. Do we want to take it out of EPA? Oh, no, we cannot take it 
out of EPA. Do we want to take it out of NASA? Oh, my gosh, no. We had 
people from Texas there and they would not take it out of NASA.

  So, Mr. Speaker, here we are today with this phony argument saying 
that they want to recommit this bill and reinstate and add another $200 
million for veterans. Let me tell my colleagues, that is the most phony 
argument I have ever heard in my life. And I tell my colleagues, I 
personally resent it, and I want everybody to come over here and I want 
them to vote for this rule. Then I want them to vote for this bill, 
which, in my opinion, gives a fair and adequate increase to the 
veterans budget.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman at the 
microphone is an outstanding marine veteran, but he is not the only 
veteran in the House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Absolutely. I just pointed to another good one.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman can point to another one here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Absolutely.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have our differences on what is wrong. 
The only thing I am making a point of is that this budget came in with 
$200 million less than the House position. Is that not so, Mr. Solomon?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me how I could fix 
that. We were not informed on how those on the other side of the aisle 
were putting the budget together, when they had all those raw figures. 
We are closed off of that room. So at one time, after the gentleman 
brings the budget, he says where would I fix it?
  All I am saying is, if the House came in with that figure originally, 
the veterans need that money today as much as they needed it last week. 
And when the bill was recommitted, no one looked at that veterans 
figure to try to make some changes. It is still the same figure as it 
was when the bill was defeated here last week. That is the only point I 
am making.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman makes a 
good point. I worship the ground a former President walked on, and I 
have not talked to him since last February 6, when we passed the line 
item veto. That was Ronald Reagan. He taught me something, and it 
always bothered me, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
and that is when we compromise, are we compromising our principles?
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we really believe in something, we 
should not give in. He said, Jerry, in all the years I was President, 
for 8 years, he said I could not have it all my way. We had to 
compromise. And, Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Moakley, there is 
another body over there, and we have to live with them. We cannot just 
ignore them.
  Now, we have 250 veterans hospitals out there, and all of these 
outpatient clinics and all of these people. We need to keep those 
going. The money expires. We have to pass this bill. Somewhere along 
the line we had to compromise. So if we can get $400 million more for 
the veterans medical care delivery system, and it came out of NASA, 
HUD, and Housing and we cannot get another penny out of there, I think 
it is time we compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we voted for this bill because I 
think it is fair for everybody. What does the gentleman think?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield once again, I 
would say, no, I think we should stay with the House position on the 
veterans. It was the veterans who came forward that were responsible in 
killing this bill, and I do not see any changes that affect them in 
here. I would be very surprised if a lot of people from your party do 
not walk in with casts on their arms if they are forced to change their 
votes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, let me say 
that I think the people in my party will do what I ask them. I hope the 
gentleman does not change his mind, because we are just getting the 
President's new budget.
  The President, when he finally got around to giving us a 10-year 
balanced budget, according to his figures, he was going to cut veterans 
benefits by $9 billion within the first 7 years of that 10 and then $17 
billion overall. We just got this new budget he set up this morning, 
and lo and behold, what does it have in it? Four billion dollars, not 
$200 million. Four billion dollars in additional cuts in veterans 
benefits.
  I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I want him to stick with 
me and fight that with every ounce of strength he has.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has erred on his 
figures.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am reading it out of Congress Daily in 
the Washington Post. Do they make errors?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California, Jerry Lewis, 
my very good friend, who has done such an admirable job in one of the 
most difficult positions in this Congress, and that is having to 
appropriate funds for this whole myriad, this big part of this entire 
budget.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding, and I did not want to intervene in the magnificent discussion 
between members of the Committee on Rules, but I must say to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that your colleague and ranking 
member on the Committee on Rules is absolutely 

[[Page H 14186]]
wrong when he suggests that we did not make an effort to find this 
money.
  As a matter of fact, when we got our direction from the House, the 
biggest difficulty with that motion to recommit was the fact the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] chose not to find offsets. It was 
obvious he was playing a political game in the process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is what I resent.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Having said that, nonetheless, we went back 
and took a very, very hard look. The reality is that the only account 
in this bill that had an increase had to do with VA medical care, some 
$400 million. There are significant reductions, actual reductions, in 
housing and EPA and NASA, in FEMA, and all of them less under the CR, 
to say the least. As we go forward, those accounts will be affected 
very significantly.
  But to suggest we did not try to find that money, the reality was 
that we could not go back and get more out of HUD. Maybe the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wants that, I am not sure. We could not go 
back and get more out of EPA. Maybe Mr. Obey wants that, but I am not 
sure. He did not indicate it. We did try to find the money, and came to 
the conclusion that the only account that had been increased was VA 
medical care; and, indeed, it was appropriate for us to have the House 
recognize that support for our veterans.
  It is very, very important that we not distort this process. Some in 
the House, maybe the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], I am 
not sure, some in the House believed the President was going to veto 
the defense bill, and from that they would take away some money from 
defense and give to these social accounts. Now, that did not occur. The 
President let that bill become law. We did not get a veto.
  I never expected it, frankly, but we did not get extra money. Maybe 
that was their wish list, whereby we would provide more money for every 
one of these social programs. But, indeed, that did not occur, and 
because of it, this bill is fairly balanced and should not be distorted 
further because of the political process that appears to be taking 
place on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say to the 
gentleman, we are doing everything we can to cooperate. We voted, many 
of us the other day, for the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations 
bill. There was a lot in there I did not like. It was too much 
spending. But we have to keep the Government running. We have to keep 
it going. This is an effort, a compromise to do that.
  This is probably the most important part of the entire budget except 
for the Department of Defense. That is why we need to compromise and 
pass this bill today.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, does the gentleman know of any 
veteran or veterans organization that is not interested in our Nation 
reaching a balanced budget? Do not the veterans organizations, at least 
they have expressed it to me, feel very strongly that our whole economy 
and their benefits and everybody else's benefits, Social Security, the 
whole gamut of what the Government provides, depends on our reaching a 
balanced budget as soon as possible so that the work of the gentleman 
from California and his committee, and all the other committees, and 
the gentleman from the Committee on Rules, in trying to contract the 
Government spending and keeping those benefits flowing in a rational 
manner all lead to a balanced budget which benefits everyone? Is that 
not what the veterans want for our country? I ask that rhetorically.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I would say 
to the gentleman, yes, everyone does, and so does 69 percent of the 
rest of the American people.
  I am going to ask the gentleman to yield back the balance of the time 
and I will move the previous question, but I would hope that everyone 
would come over here. We have the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
we have four more appropriation bills to nail down here in some way and 
we want to work together.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say I find this debate ironic. This is 
December 7. A fairly significant military event happened on that day, 
as all of us know. I think it is ironic that on December 7 we are being 
asked by our Republican friends on this side of the aisle to adopt an 
appropriations bill which will reduce funding for veterans medical care 
by $213 million below the amount originally provided in the House bill.

                              {time}  1230

  Do we want that money restored? You betcha. Do we want more money in 
this bill in general? You betcha. I make absolutely no apology for 
that.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said that those who brought 
this motion to the floor, in the gentleman's words, had voted against 
providing aid to the Contras. You bet I did. It was an illegal war. The 
gentleman said that we voted against aid to Salvador. Not me. I voted 
for a significant amount of aid to Salvador.
  The gentleman said we voted against the Pershing missile. No, I did 
not. I supported the Pershing missile. I thought that was the one 
missile that was necessary to bring the Soviet Union to their senses. I 
think the gentleman ought to get his facts straight.
  Second, let me point out that the President is going to veto this 
bill. It is $900 million below where the President wants it on the 
Veterans' Administration, and $1.6 billion below on the Environmental 
Protection Agency. While my colleagues have very reluctantly eliminated 
the antienvironmental riders in the bill, they still have included many 
of those same riders in the statement to the managers, which still puts 
pressure on the EPA to follow those antienvironment suggestions being 
made by this committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make the point that this bill, when it comes 
back from conference, has $1.5 billion more to use, and yet the account 
for veterans medical care is reduced by $213 million. We do not believe 
that makes sense.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can talk all they want 
about there being a nominal increase in the funding for veterans 
medical care, but the increase provided will not keep up with 
inflationary cost increases to provide VA medical care. I think the 
committee understands it.
  Mr. Speaker, this reduction will mean that nearly 50,000 veterans 
will be denied treatment at VA facilities; nearly 20,000 inpatient 
visits will not occur; nearly 430,000 outpatient visits will not be 
accommodated; more than 2,700 personnel years in the VA will be lost.
  Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that is the kind of present we want to 
give our veterans on December 7. I would urge, after this rule is 
disposed of, that we vote for the recommittal motion when it is offered 
again, to insist that the committee do what this House said they ought 
to do in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this committee does not have to 
reduce EPA funding in order to facilitate this request of ours. What 
they do need to do is go back to the drawing board and get a new budget 
allocation from the Committee on Appropriations central office so that 
they do not have to skewer the progress we want to make in veterans 
health care and in environmental protection.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUILLEN. 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. Evidentially a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 175, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H 14187]]


                             [Roll No. 842]

                               YEAS--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
     Brewster
     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
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     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
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--175

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     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
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Bevill
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Fowler
     Hancock
     Istook
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1253

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 842, I was on the floor and 
voted my voting card. Evidently an electronic malfunction occurred and 
my vote was not recorded. If it had been properly recorded, I would 
have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
291, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2099) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans' Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Pursuant to House Resolution 
291, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, December 6, 1995, at page H14112.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].


                             general leave

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report and on the Senate amendments 
reported in disagreement and that I might include tables, charts, and 
other extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to bring to the House floor 
the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations 
Act for the Department of Veterans Affairs, housing, and other 
independent agencies. Following Housing passage of the motion to 
recommit, I anticipated that the conferees would follow the direction 
of the House and add an additional $213 million to the VA medical care 
account.
  Unfortunately, when that motion was made, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] chose not to supply necessary offsets so it would 
be in order to facilitate our effort in responding to the House's 
direction. So as a result of that lack of direction, Senator Bond and I 
made a serious effort to locate offsets but soon discovered that 
removing $213 million from the other accounts, to say the least, would 
distort our bill considerably.
  As Members can see from this chart, which outlines the major agencies 
in this account, it is apparent that most of our agencies have been 
reduced very significantly from the 1995 appropriations year. HUD, for 
example, is down by $350 million. NASA down by $352 million. EPA is 
down by $235 million.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious by this chart that there is only one 
account, there is only one account within this bill that had an 
increase. And that increase was some $400 million for VA medical 
assistance. It is true that when the bill left the House we had more 
money in this specific account, but everybody knows that when we deal 
with the other body, we must make sure that we try to make sense out of 
the priorities of both bodies. In this case, it is very obvious that 
the priorities involved making sure that we did not continue with 
further reduction in programs like important housing programs as well 
as important programs in EPA.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the House to recognize 
that the present CR that we are dealing with for EPA, for example, 
creates major adjustments in terms of money 

[[Page H 14188]]
availability. If we look at the current CR we are working under, EPA is 
cut by 11.5 percent. For housing programs, for example, they are 12.5 
percent below the levels of the current conference report.

                              {time}  1300

  This is a far, far greater reduction than the reductions in the VA-
HUD bill that is before us today. These remaining eight days provide a 
window of opportunity for narrowing the differences that divide the 
Congress and the White House. With every passing day, indeed with every 
passing hour, this window of opportunity is closing.
  If the White House is serious about resolving the differences that 
remain between the White House and the Congress, the time to act is 
now. We are suggesting to the administration that they take a hard look 
at what a CR really means. If we should decide by the action on the 
floor today not to send this bill forward, not to have an opportunity 
to change it between now and the time it actually goes to the White 
House, then indeed it is very likely that all of these programs will 
operate under a CR that is considerably longer than ever anticipated 
and a continuing resolution that is even more severe than these numbers 
we see on the chart before us.
  If indeed Members of the House want to give support to important 
housing programs, if they really care about EPA, if indeed we are 
interested in seeing that these programs go forward in a way that makes 
sense, the important thing today is to vote no on the motion to 
recommit that will be before us shortly and, beyond that, vote aye on 
final passage in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just 1 week ago I stood before the House in opposition 
to the conference report on H.R. 2089, the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies appropriations act. As I stated then, this bill 
grossly underfunds many critical programs upon which this Nation 
depends for decent and affordable housing, veterans benefits, a safe 
and clean environment, science and technological investments.
  Earlier this year, the House demonstrated that it shared my position 
with regard to protecting our environment and adopted the Stokes-
Boehlert motion to instruct when the House appointed conferees. Then 
upon bringing the conference report to the floor for consideration, the 
House registered further concern about insufficient funding for yet 
another important program, veterans medical care, and recommitted the 
bill to conference.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report brought back for consideration 
shows plain and simple that the leadership does not care that the House 
wanted this bill changed. The basis of recommittal was to maintain the 
House position for veterans medical care. Nothing in this bill has 
changed with regard to that instruction.
  In fact, it appears that the leadership's interpretation of 
recommitting a bill based on specific instructions means merely 
changing votes of Members who voted to recommit the bill. I think that 
veterans and veterans organizations should watch today to see which 
Members voted with them just 8 days ago in favor of more money for 
veterans medical care by recommitting the bill, and now, without any 
changes in the bill, changed their votes against adding the additional 
funds barely a week later.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report completely ignores the House 
instruction. This is total disrespect, disregard, and defiance to this 
body, after it recommitted this bill with instructions. In flagrant 
disregard of the House instruction, the conferees decide not to add any 
more money to VA medical care, and, after changing just a few commas, 
semicolons, and adding a little language, sent the same bill back here 
today in total derogation of the House's instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said before this is a bad bill. The President has 
said it is a bad bill. The House said it was a bad bill when it sent it 
back to conference. Since the conference report has not changed to 
reflect the House instructions, maybe the House needs to tell the 
conferees again. The President has given us his position on the bill, 
and that is the statement that I have received on the statement of 
administration policy that says this:

       The President will veto this bill, if presented to him in 
     its current form. The bill provides insufficient funds to 
     support the important activities covered by this bill. It 
     would threaten public health and the environment, and 
     programs that are helping communities help themselves, close 
     the doors on college for thousands of young people, and leave 
     veterans seeking medical care with fewer treatment options.

  The President's statement also says:

       In addition, the administration would like to work with the 
     Congress to address the other concerns that were outlined in 
     the conference letter of November 6, 1995.

  The President finally says:

       Clearly, this bill does not reflect the values that 
     Americans hold dear. The President urges Congress to send him 
     an appropriations bill for these important priorities that 
     truly serves the American people.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not serve the American people, and I urge 
support for the motion to recommit and to vote against the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is the same conference 
report as before, but a decidedly different budgetary playing field.
  Since the last time we were here, President Clinton has signed the 
Defense bill, which, for the time being, takes off the table the honey 
pot of money the administration was seeking to redirect toward spending 
on social programs.
  Indeed, the choice before us today seems more clear today than ever 
before.
  Either President Clinton signs this bill, or all of the programs 
under its jurisdiction will most likely be funded at the levels 
contained in the last continuing resolution.
  This bill is really the last, best chance we have to increase 
spending on environmental protection; to increase spending on 
affordable housing; to increase spending on space exploration and 
scientific research compared to current funding levels.
  The numbers are indisputable. Every major program in this conference 
report gets an increase. NSF up 0.63 percent; FEMA up 1.74 percent; 
NASA up 1.92 percent; VA medical care up 2.47 percent; EPA up 11.46 
percent; and HUD up 12.44 percent.
  So I urge my colleagues, think long and hard about that before you 
vote.
  Now Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address the veterans medical 
care issue.
  There has been a lot of debate about the conference committee's 
actions following this latest motion to recommit. And I think it is 
time we start separating the facts from all the political theater.
  When the conference report was last brought to the floor, the 
minority moved that it be sent back to conference to add more money for 
veterans' medical care.
  At the time, I doubt that even the sponsors of the motion to recommit 
believed that it would prevail.
  After all, motions to recommit are procedural votes that are, with 
few exceptions, largely symbolic in nature.
  Certainly, this motion to recommit did not have the same significance 
as, say the Stokes-Boehlert motion we considered earlier this fall.
  But I think that many Members saw this vote as an opportunity to 
demonstrate their concern for the Nation's veterans. Who knows, maybe 
some Members voted to recommit the VA-HUD bill just out of habit.
  Either way, the motion passed.
  But I think it is clear that this was not an organized attempt to put 
more money into veterans medical care. If it were, the sponsors surely 
would have offered a package of offsetting spending cuts to fund the 
increase. They did not.
  So the conference committee treated the motion for what it really 
was--a feel-good vote.
  I believe that every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, 
shares a genuine concern for those Americans who have sacrificed their 
health and well-being in defense of our great Nation.

[[Page H 14189]]

  Indeed, in the bill before us today, we have treated veterans medical 
programs better than any other program under our jurisdiction.
  The lesson here is that procedural votes, however politically 
appealing, have real consequences.
  So I urge my colleagues, let us keep the process moving along. Vote 
for the conference report, and resist any further procedural potshots 
fired from the sidelines.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' On 
December 7, the day on which the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we are 
bringing up a bill of special concern and interest to our veterans. 
This is exactly the same bill that was rejected by the House recently, 
because it slashed veterans health care some $400 million below the 
administration's request, and some $213 million below the choke-hold 
level that the House had passed. The same bill is back before us. Let 
us reject it again, because it is no better bill today than it was last 
week when we rejected it.
  I remember my vote last time, and I know my colleague do. We voted 
for veterans, for their families, for their children. We told the 
majority that while we favored a balanced budget, we do not favor a 
budget that balances on the back of our veterans. We said that with 
their slashing of Medicare, their trashing of Medicaid, and their 
bashing of every other item in the social safety net, adequate health 
services for our Nation's veterans becomes even more vital.
  We said then this bill is unacceptable. It is still unacceptable. It 
has not changed. It will cut funds for construction of two hospitals, 
including one needed to replace a hospital damaged in the L.A. 
earthquake of 1991. It will lead to firing of health care workers. It 
will lead to denial of health care for veterans. It includes the same 
punitive constructions on the budget of the Administrator and the 
Secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department.
  A vote against this bill will simply inform the Committee on 
Appropriations conferees, who have disregarded the instruction of this 
House, that they cannot so lightly do it, and that when the House 
informs them they are to take care of the veterans, they should do so.
  A vote against the bill that arbitrarily cuts 22 percent from EPA's 
general budget is also a good vote. It makes a total additional 25 
percent cut in environmental enforcement. These cuts, totaling over 
$1.6 billion, come on top of nearly $1.3 billion in last year's 
rescission bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this outrageous 
behavior by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement for a second time. I again thank the gentleman from 
California, Chairman Lewis, for yielding me this time. He deserves 
credit for doing a terrific job on a tough but very essential bill.
  As I said last week on the House floor during consideration of this 
conference agreement, we have done the best we could, given our 
allocation. We have prioritized our Nation's needs. No one ever said it 
would be simple balancing our Federal budget, but I believe it has been 
done responsibly.
  It is easy for those in the minority to say that we need more money. 
But the fact is, what we need to do is to live within our means. We 
have spent our allocation, and there is no more money left.
  That is why I was surprised when this conference report was 
recommitted with instructions to add more money to veterans medical 
care. This program, unlike the majority of the other programs included 
in this bill, received nearly a $400 million increase, an increase of 
$400 million.
  Yesterday in conference committee the question was asked of the 
minority, where should the increased funding for veterans medical care 
come from? No suggestions were given, and the reason no suggestions 
were given was because they know that in order to govern, to really 
balance the Federal budget, and to serve people's needs, we all have to 
make tough choices.
  A delicate balance has been a reached in this conference agreement, 
and taking funding from one program and giving it to another would 
disrupt this essential balance.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. We have done our job. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I did last week, I strongly oppose this mean spirited 
and draconian HUD-VA appropriations conference report for fiscal year 
1996. Nothing has changed. It was a bad bill then and it is a bad bill 
today. It still victimizes people who are helpless--they have neither 
money nor power, which are commodities that seem to get attention these 
days. And it still slashes one-fifth of the budget for the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development.
  What this conference report still does, make no mistake, is place the 
burden on cities and States, while the Federal Government takes a walk 
and abrogates its responsibilities. The Republicans call it devolution; 
I call it shirking our responsibility in favor of the wealthy at the 
expense of America's poor and working families.
  I still urge a ``no'' note on this conference report, which merely 
victimizes further the victims of poverty.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, under this conference agreement, VA 
medical care is increased by $400 million. Increased. A real increase 
of $400 million at a time when the word ``increase'' is becoming a 
rarity. It comes at a time of declining veteran population and a 
decline in the utilization of VA hospitals.
  In addition, medical research is increased by $5 million over last 
year's level, and the minor construction program is increased by $37 
million over last year's level. The VA-HUD appropriations agreement is 
fair to veterans' programs. In fact, the VA-HUD Act reflects cuts in 
virtually every agency program or account except VA's medical care 
account. This increase comes at a time in which the veterans' 
population will decrease by 2.5 million and the VA hospitals, it might 
surprise my colleagues to know, on any given day has between 23 percent 
and 50 percent of all beds in those VA hospitals lying vacant.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, the adoption of this agreement, is integral 
to our balanced budget plan. And what will a balanced budget mean to 
Arkansas' veterans, my home State? With a balanced Federal budget, 
according to a recent study, interest rates will drop 2.7 percent. For 
an Arkansas veteran that means, on the average mortgage, $1,591 per 
year that they will save. That is for an Arkansas veteran. On a school 
loan, on an average 10-year student loan in Arkansas, they will save 
$645 when we do this. They will save $148 per household because of the 
decreased cost of local and State governments.
  A balanced budget is good for veterans and this is a step toward that 
balanced budget, which we need.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan invests dollars and dignity in 
veterans' programs. It also makes a commitment to future veterans that 
America will be anchored on a sound, strong financial basis. This bill 
is pro veteran. I urge support for it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is basically the 
first step of a two-step process which we are going to see within this 
Congress. The first 

[[Page H 14190]]
step is putting the EPA on a starvation diet. Squeeze down the amount 
of money they have to clean up Superfund sites. That is what this bill 
does.
  Meanwhile, at the same time, in the Committee on Commerce, there is a 
Superfund gutting bill which does at least two things, but more. One, 
it puts a cap of only 125 more sites that can ever be cleaned up under 
Superfund. Ever. Only 125. There is at least 1,200 or 1,500 more sites 
in the country, but that is all it will be, 125.
  Second, it gives polluter rebates. It is the Ed McMahon polluter's 
clearinghouse sweepstakes. The Superfund bill in the Committee on 
Commerce says to polluters, congratulations, you may have already won 
millions of dollars in fabulous cash rebates. All you have to do is 
wait for Congress to pass that bill that is in Commerce right now, and 
soon our prize van will be on its way to your corporate headquarters 
with a rebate check in hand to pay you for cleaning up sites that you 
willfully or negligently polluted in the past, draining out all 
remaining money that is in Superfund.
  So think of this as the one-two punch. Finishing off Superfund once 
and for all, drain the revenues here so that we cannot clean up any of 
the existing sites that are on the list, sorry, and then put a cap on 
any future sites in the next bill coming down the line.
  Mr. Speaker, we must vote no here so that we can have the full debate 
we need on what the responsibility is of the Government of this country 
to clean up these neighborhood nightmares across the country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me time, and I commend him on handling a bill that I think is very 
important to the future of our veterans and the future of our Nation's 
space program and handling the bill extremely well.
  This bill fully funds our manned space flight program and the shuttle 
account at the levels the President asked for. It also includes funding 
for the construction of a new veterans clinic in my district. The 
veterans in my district have been asking for a health care facility for 
12 years. It is one of the largest areas in the Nation of veterans that 
does not have a medical health care facility, and we have some funding 
in this bill to provide them with some good quality outpatient medical 
care.
  Mr. Speaker, as many know, prior to coming here I was a practicing 
physician, and this will meet about 80 to 90 percent of the health care 
needs of the veterans in my district. It is a good bill. I encourage 
all of my colleagues to support it.
  What I think was disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, was a motion to recommit 
to add more money to a veterans account and then no attempt to find an 
offset for where those funds would be coming from. I had hundreds and 
hundreds of veterans support me in my campaign last year because they 
want the budget balanced. They know if we do not balance the budget, 
there will be no money for health care for veterans, there will be no 
money for the space program. There will be no money for anything. We 
will be broke.
  Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to see people getting up and saying let 
us put more money into this and then not come up with a place to find 
the money. We need to get our priorities in order. We need to balance 
the books. We need to be responsible with the way we handle the 
people's money. This is the people's money.
  I know what would happen if the minority were the majority. They 
would just borrow the money again. They would add more money to our 
Nation's debt.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of this committee has crafted a well-
thought-out bill that meets the needs for the future of our Nation, for 
the future of our space program and for the future of our veterans. It 
is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill 
and vote, yes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a disaster. This 
conference report hits veterans where it hurts most. It cuts funding 
for new construction of veterans outpatient medical facilities. Many 
aged and ill veterans are forced to try to travel miles to get to a VA 
facility and this would decrease transportation assistance. Many are 
simply doing without desperately needed health care.
  If that is not enough, this bill hurts another vulnerable population, 
families and children, who simply need a place to live. Decent housing, 
shelter, a roof over their heads. This bill cuts housing by 21 percent. 
What an indictment on our values. We wave the flag and proclaim our 
love for veterans, yet when their backs are turned, we stab them in the 
back by ignoring their health care needs. And where are our so-called 
family values? These are real lives, real people, real children, real 
families we are hurting.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. It does not 
even deserve the dignity of a debate.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and the veterans throughout our Nation 
need to know the truth about this conference report. It is a good piece 
of legislation that deserves to be passed and signed into law. Why? 
Because without this legislation veterans will not get the health care 
they deserve. This bill provides the VA-Medical Care Account with $400 
million more than last year. It is the only account in the entire bill 
to receive an increase.
  What will happen if this bill does not pass or is vetoed by the 
President? Should we have to fund all the accounts in the bill under a 
continuing resolution, those levels will not be nearly as high as the 
levels in this bill. That is true for veterans programs, housing 
programs, environmental programs, and disaster readiness. That is why 
it is essential that this bill be passed and signed by the President.
  All of these programs are important, and this conference report 
reflects this fact by providing funding to improve housing for our 
poor, to eliminate drugs in our neighborhoods, to maintain essential 
environmental programs, and to provide good health to our veterans.
  These are our Nation's priorities and this legislation provides 
funding for these priorities. I urge my colleagues to support the 
conference report to H.R. 2099. If you care about the veterans and 
other citizens in your district, you will know it is the right thing to 
do.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Neumann], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. The 
freshman class came here about 10 months ago with a very strong 
responsibility to get this budget balanced in 7 years or less. When we 
look at the overall budget picture, we see Medicare spending going up 
from $4,800 per person to now over $7,100 per person in the system. We 
see Medicaid spending going up at a rate faster than the rate of 
inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to allow these areas of the budget to 
increase, and at the same time get to a balanced budget over a 7-year 
period of time, someplace, somewhere the budget has to be brought under 
control. And much to the credit of our chairman, this is one of the 
places where the budget was, in fact, brought under control.
  Our chairman has hit the number that he was given in order to bring 
the budget into balance over this 7-year period of time, and, clearly, 
he is to be commended for doing that. This area of spending in the HUD-
VA budget and budget authority is down over $9 billion from last year. 
This is truly a credit to the chairman of this committee and to all the 
people that have been actively involved in bringing this in line.
  The American people have said it is time to get this budget balanced. 
Clearly, this bill we have on the table today is an important and 
significant step in the right direction.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) 
  
[[Page H 14191]]



  Shirley Volkmer, Wife of Representative Harold Volkmer, Passes Away

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I asked for this unanimous consent to speak 
out of order for a moment to inform the House that Shirley Volkmer, the 
wife of our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, Harold Volkmer, 
passed away this morning in Arlington Hospital.
  I would like to notify the Members that visitation will be held 
tomorrow, Friday, December 8, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at the Murphy 
Funeral Home located at 4510 Wilson Boulevard in Arlington, VA. 
Visitation will be held from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. Sunday, December 10, 
at the O'Donnell Funeral Home in Hannibal, MO.
  Services for Shirley Volkmer are scheduled for 10 a.m. Monday, 
December 11, at the Holy Family Catholic Church in Hannibal, MO.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards], the ranking minority member of the Veterans' 
Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today my Republican colleagues have a 
choice, a very clear choice. I believe they must choose between their 
commitment to veterans health care versus towing the party line.
  Last week, 25 House Republicans showed independence and courage in 
saying no to their party and no to $213 million in conference cuts to 
veterans health care. These 25 Republicans should be saluted for 
putting veterans above partisanship. Sadly, rather than saluting them, 
the House Republican leadership scolded them for supporting veterans.
  Let me quote for my colleagues one House leader from today's Wall 
Street Journal. Referring to the 25 Republicans, the leader said this, 
and I quote, ``I was madder than hell. They had forgotten the big 
picture and they were doing things on their own individual 
initiatives.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for this House when Republicans are 
criticized by their own leadership for showing their own individual 
initiatives to support veterans. The Journal article went on to say 
this: ``The loss infuriated the leadership, which wants to show its 
political muscle and reverse the outcome without making high profile 
concessions on spending.''
  Mr. Speaker, when did showing political muscle become more important 
than helping veterans? I would suggest that showing political courage 
is far more important than showing political muscle.
  I urge my 25 Republican colleagues, who cast a tough vote, a 
courageous vote in favor of veterans last week, to do so again today. 
How can anyone explain to veterans why in 1 week they switched their 
vote on $213 million in veterans health care? More important, by 
putting veterans above partisanship, we can ensure that our Nation's 
veterans receive the quality health care they so deeply deserve.
  I urge my 25 Republican colleagues to vote today for the same motion 
to recommit that they voted for just a week ago. Our veterans have 
stood up for us. Now, on Pearl Harbor Day, it is time for us to stand 
up for them.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Taking just a moment, I was kind of curious about the remarks of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. I presume, since the gentleman 
knows full well that his party is not willing to take additional 
funding out of HUD or out of EPA, I suppose the gentleman would want to 
take it out of NASA. We can take more out of NASA, if the gentleman 
would like, and put it back into veterans programs, but I am not sure 
that his district or his State would understand or appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, may we have some understanding as to how 
much time each side has left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes] has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, what this legislation is about speaks to 
the priorities of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and the 
Republican leadership, and those priorities are wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans are finding it 
increasingly difficult to locate affordable housing, should we be 
making major cuts in our housing programs which will result in higher 
rents for the working poor and increased homelessness? The answer is 
no.
  At a time when people from one end of this country to the other are 
worried about the impact of pollution and pesticides in our air, our 
water, and in our food, should we be making devastating cuts in 
environmental protection? The answer is no.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of our veterans, the people who 
put their lives on the line to defend this country, are today unable to 
receive the health care and the other benefits which they have been 
promised, should we be laying the groundwork in this legislation for a 
7-year budget which makes devastating cuts to our veterans programs? 
The answer is no.
  Mr. Speaker, this country must move forward toward a balanced budget, 
but we should not do it on the backs of our veterans, the elderly, the 
children, the middle class, and the poor.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise really to speak in response to some 
of the things we have heard here, because listening, it is almost like 
some of our veterans across the country might think we do not care 
about them.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that our veterans know and 
understand that under the bill we are about to pass, spending on 
veterans benefits is being increased by $400 million. It is the only 
category, as we looked at this whole thing, where we did in fact do 
increases. Only in Washington do we call a $400 million increase for 
our veterans a cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I just think it is very important that we reassure the 
veterans in this Congress, and the veterans across this country, that 
veterans benefits are not being cut. Veterans benefits under this bill 
are going up by $400 million.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
This bill wildly misses the mark. It misses the mark on fairness, 
because it misplaces our values and it is about misguided priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter for the balanced budget and have 
voted for a coalition budget that balances the budget in a fair manner 
by the year 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, this particular bill will cut housing by 22 percent, it 
will not restore $213 million in badly needed veterans benefits, and it 
misplaces our priorities in science, where it rewards a space station 
that is $80 billion over budget and threatens our science in programs 
like the Galileo project that will hopefully be tremendously successful 
today in helping us discover what takes place on Jupiter.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to defeat this 
misguided, misplaced bill and to continue to work on efforts such as 
the coalition budget to balance this budget in a fair manner.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments 
in this debate about priorities. This bill is doing everything it can 
with the limited resources we have to prioritize those tax dollars to 
the people who need the money the most.
  Mr. Speaker, it deals with housing in a way that holds people very 
accountable for the condition of those houses, but ensures that people 
who need to live in public housing, who need a lift up, will get that.
  So, public housing is not cut, nor is it going to send anybody out 
into the streets. The money is spent to ensure that people who need to 
live in those houses have a decent place to live and ensures the 
accountability of those people who are on the boards of directors of 
public housing in the various communities. 

[[Page H 14192]]

  Mr. Speaker, as far as veterans benefits are concerned, I will say 
two things. First, it is an increase of $400 million. That is an actual 
increase. I am a veteran of Vietnam, wounded. I spent time in the 
system. As a former Marine Corps, wounded Vietnam veteran, and the list 
goes on and on, and there are a lot of Americans out there that are in 
that category, I have been through the system.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been through naval hospitals. I have been through 
veterans hospitals. I continue to visit them as a Member of Congress 
and also as a wounded veteran who occasionally will need their 
services. This bill makes sure, and we are held accountable, this bill 
makes sure that veterans receive the benefits that they deserve.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking minority member of the 
full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on December 7, we are being asked to pass a 
bill which reduces veterans funding by $900 million, and which cuts 
environmental protection funding by $1.6 billion below the amount 
requested by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think we ought to do that on any day. I 
certainly do not think we ought to do that on the anniversary of Pearl 
Harbor. That is not the message I want to send to veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that on the environmental side, while 
the committee has removed, after the House voted to instruct them to do 
so, while the committee has removed the 17 antienvironment riders, the 
polluter's dream list, from the bill, they have, nonetheless, retained 
some of those same provisions in the statement of the managers, which 
still puts pressure on EPA to follow those misguided suggestions. I do 
not think we ought to do that on December 7, or any time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of charts displayed by our good 
friends on the Republican side of the aisle. I would simply make two 
points. If those charts compared agency-to-agency funding from one year 
to another, they would show that total VA funding is $43 million below 
last year, and $915 million below the President.
  In a very simplified chart, if this line across the page is 
represented by the President's budget, veterans are cut by $915 
million. Or if I can use a comparative chart, the bill which came back 
from conference had $1.5 billion more than what was contained in the 
House bill, represented by this baseline. But, in fact, veterans got 
$213 million less in funding, even though the bill was expanded by a 
billion and a half dollars. Now, that hardly sounds to me like veterans 
are being given high priority.
  Mr. Speaker, we are being told on the Republican side of the aisle by 
my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], that, after 
all, we have a 2-percent increase in here for veterans. There is a 
nominal increase for veterans health care, but the fact is the 
inflation rate in health care is 10 percent a year.
  Mr. Speaker, when we provide only a 2 percent adjustment, that means 
in real purchasing power there is a significant decline in what we are 
going to be able to provide for veterans. That is why 50,000 veterans 
will be denied treatment at VA facilities; nearly 20,000 inpatient 
visits will not occur; 430,000 outpatient visits will not be 
accommodated; and, 2,700 personnel-years will be lost.

  Mr. Speaker, we are also told, ``Gee whiz, you folks did not prepare 
any offsets.'' There are a number of offsets that the committee could 
provide. They know where they can find them. But let me suggest that we 
did ask the Committee on Appropriations to provide a different outcome, 
because we offered a motion in full committee where the allocations are 
made between the 13 various subcommittees. We offered a change in 
allocation from that adopted by the Republican majority which would 
have provided significant additional assets in this bill. I believe the 
number was around $200 million additional in outlays.
  Mr. Speaker, In my view, if we want to correct the problem, we ought 
to go back and provide a different 602 allocation. That is what we 
ought to do. What my Republican colleagues have done is to short-sheet 
this bill in order to enable the country to buy twice as many B-2 
bombers as the Pentagon wants, and in order to enable the country to go 
down the road in spending $70 billion on an aircraft that we do not 
need for another 15 years in the case of the F-22.
  In order to finance those additional funding requests that the 
Republican majority has, we are being told we ought to cut education, 
squeeze veterans, squeeze health care, squeeze environmental 
protection. I do not think that is what this Congress ought to be all 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in closing, that in addition to the 
problem which we have in veterans, which can be corrected by the motion 
to recommit, we need to have a substantial increase in environmental 
funding, and this bill simply does not provide it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to 
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], my 
classmate and colleague.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office and I saw all these 
words flying back and forth, and I was reminded of an adage we have 
back in Wisconsin that actions speak louder than words. I was reminded 
that yesterday President Clinton vetoed the balanced budget bill. But 
to do it, he flew a pen from Texas, from the LBJ Library, up here to 
Capitol Hill, to Washington, to the White House, to veto the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if he is so interested in veterans on this historic day 
of December 7, I would have given President Clinton this pen and he 
could have vetoed the bill, and he could have saved all of that money 
and could have given it to the veterans.

                              {time}  1345

  We have got too much symbolism here. It is about time for some 
intellectual integrity. Our friends on the other side are throwing all 
this barnyard stuff over here. Let us do something for the veterans on 
December 7. Let us do something for the children of this country. Let 
us do something for the United States of America for which all those 
veterans fought, and let us have a balanced budget for the first time 
in 26 years and really do something for this country, rather than all 
this symbolism.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, let us, if we might, try to set the record 
straight on a couple of aspects of this bill that are pretty much 
irrefutable. This bill eliminates national service as we know it in 
this country, never to occur again. It eliminates community development 
financial institutions. It decimates the ability of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to do what it has set out to do, whether it is 
Superfund cleanup or rewarding polluters, as this bill does, it is bad 
news for the EPA, for the environment and for Americans no matter where 
they may be. And it goes so far, it cuts the EPA by 20 percent.
  Some critics are upset because some of us have raised the question 
about veterans and are arguing, well, veterans are concerned about a 
balanced budget. Every veteran I know is, but they are also concerned 
about knowing that they will have someplace safe to take care of them 
in their old age. We were not worried about offsets when we were 
sending them into World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. We should not be 
worried now except to say that we have an obligation to veterans that 
goes beyond just maintaining the funding.
  We cut 60 percent in construction facilities alone and that adversely 
affects veterans no matter who they are or where they are. Finally the 
bill reduces funding for housing by 20 percent. It takes all of the 
things that many of us have worked for on both sides of the aisle under 
the name of a balanced budget and eliminates them by saying, this is 
what we have to do.
  Conscience tells me what we have to do is to reorder priorities. In 
doing that, we will find other ways to take care of the balanced 
budget, but not by decimating the EPA, by doing away with housing 
throughout this country and housing programs, and by severely hurting 
veterans who all across this Nation are looking for decent, adequate 
veterans care and a right to believe that this country and this 
Congress on December 7, Pearl Harbor day, have their best interests in 
mind. It is 

[[Page H 14193]]
a bad bill. In fact, it is a disaster. I would urge its defeat.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a slap in the face to 
Florida's veterans. The President requested $154 million for the 
Brevard County Hospital which would serve Florida's veterans in and 
around my district. But the Republicans in Congress took away that 
money. That hospital so desperately needed by veterans will not be 
built.
  Where do sick veterans in Florida go for hospital care? For the last 
few years, hundreds of Florida veterans who have developed 
psychological problems are shipped out of State. That's right. They get 
shipped off to Mississippi and Alabama for their care. Two beautiful 
States, indeed, but far away from their loved ones in Florida. I think 
this is wrong. To me, there is nothing more compelling than the need to 
care for veterans who suffer the effects of fighting our wars. That's 
why Florida needs the Brevard County Hospital.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the VA-
HUD appropriations bill. President Clinton has announced his intention 
to veto this bill because it funds veterans programs at $900 million 
less than what he requested in his budget.
  Right now, nearly 2-million veterans live in Florida, nearly 60,000 
in my district alone. More veterans live in Florida than in any other 
State except one. And 100 veterans move to Florida every day. These men 
and women are growing older and need medical care.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a slap in the face to Florida's veterans. 
The President requested $154 million for the Brevard County Hospital 
which would serve Florida's veterans in and around my district. But the 
Republicans in Congress took away that money. That hospital so 
desperately needed by veterans will not be built.
  Where do sick veterans in Florida go for hospital care? For the last 
few years, hundreds of Florida veterans who have developed 
psychological problems are shipped out of State. That's right. They get 
shipped off to Mississippi and Alabama for their care. Two beautiful 
States, indeed, but far away from their loved ones in Florida. I think 
this is wrong. To me, there is nothing more compelling than the need to 
care for veterans who suffer the effects of fighting our wars. That's 
why Florida needs the Brevard County Hospital.
  According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, with this bill, 
almost all renovation and construction of veteran's health facilities 
will terminate. A funding freeze would lead to a sharp reduction in the 
number of employees who counsel veterans and decide claims for 
benefits. The VA's award-winning medical and prosthetic research 
program would be cut in every year under the freeze.
  Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget is a top priority. And I am 
committed to doing just that. The President is also committed to a 
balanced budget. But in balancing the budget, a shared sacrifice is 
necessary. And I share the President's view that we must not balance 
the budget on the backs of our Nation's most fragile citizens--seniors, 
veterans, poor women, children, and the disabled.
  Our Nation's veterans earned their benefits through service and 
sacrifice. It should be America's highest priority to honor our 
commitment with our veterans. I believe it is wrong to abandon our 
veterans who have gone in harm's way to serve our country. We need to 
take care of our U.S. service men and women--when they are fighting our 
wars, and when, as veterans, they need health care. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my position on H.R. 2099 has been consistent from the 
beginning. It simply does not have a sufficient enough allocation to 
address all the vital programs under the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee. It is irresponsible to even consider sacrificing one 
critical program over another solely because the Republican leadership 
does not want to provide additional money for this bill overall.
  There was an opportunity for us to do this, just 2 days ago, when the 
House full Committee on Appropriations met and increased the 602(b) 
allocation for other appropriations bills. However, the VA-HUD 
allocation was not considered as a part of these discussions. We are 
not even talking about making up the $9 billion difference between the 
President's budget request and this conference report.
  The President in good faith tried to negotiate a package that would 
have added an additional $2 billion for VA HUD as well as support the 
remaining appropriations bills at a level that would retain some very 
important domestic programs. I think it is important for me, before 
closing, to say that I have just received, while here on the floor, a 
statement of administration policy. It is dated December 7, 1995. In 
the statement of administration policy we are told that the President 
will veto this bill if it is presented to him in the current form.
  This is after the administration has been advised of the action taken 
by the conferees yesterday in conference. I will not read other parts 
of the bill, of the statement except to say this: The President said, 
the bill provides less than the President requested for veterans 
medical care. The bill also includes significant restrictions on 
funding for the Secretary that appear targeted at impeding him from 
carrying out his duties as an advocate for veterans throughout the 
country. Finally, the bill does not provide necessary funding for VA 
hospital construction.
  The President ends the statement by saying: Clearly, this bill does 
not reflect the values that Americans hold dear. The administration 
would like to work with the Congress to address the issues discussed 
above as well as the other concerns that were outlined in the conferees 
letter of November 6, 1995. The President urges Congress to send him an 
appropriations bill for these important priorities that truly serves 
the American people.
  Obviously, this bill does not serve the American people.
  Lastly, I would just make reference to a letter I received, dated 
December 7, 1995, from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary 
says in his letter to me: ``Dear Congressman Stokes, I was greatly 
pleased to see that the House voted yesterday''--this is referring back 
to the previous vote--``to recommit the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act back to the conferees with 
instructions to provide an additional $213 million for VA medical 
care.''
  It goes on further to say: ``It is my great hope that the conferees 
will be able to agree on a figure that represents the sense of the 
House as evidenced by yesterday's vote.''
  Secretary Brown then says: ``It is also my hope that the conferees 
will be able to address the issues of the punitive cuts in my office 
and three VA staff offices. These cuts were a reaction against what I 
consider were my honest efforts to be sure that the veterans community 
and the public were aware of the facts in the budget debate. I 
understand the conferees reacting against my outspoken advocacy for VA 
medical funding. But their action will result in adverse personnel 
actions through either furloughs or layoffs for many dedicated career 
civil servants who are performing essential services.''
  We have a chance today to try and give the conferees one additional 
chance to clean up this bad bill.
  I think the House has spoken once before. This is a golden 
opportunity for us to once again tell the conferees of the House and 
Senate that this bill is intolerable, that the President is going to 
veto it. Congress has the first opportunity and the first 
responsibility to act before the President has to take the serious 
action that he has indicated. I urge Members to support the motion to 
recommit and vote against this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Secretary Brown 
to which I referred.

                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                Washington, DC, November 30, 1995.
     Hon. Louis Stokes,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
         Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Stokes: I was greatly pleased to see that 
     the House voted yesterday to recommit the FY 1996 VA, HUD, 
     and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act back to the 
     conferees with instructions to provide an additional $213 
     million for VA Medical Care. Your leadership in opposing the 
     conference report was instrumental in the successful motion 
     to recommit. I applaud your outstanding efforts.
       You and I have talked often about the necessity for 
     providing adequate funding to take care of the medical needs 
     of our sick and disabled veterans. It is my great hope that 
     the conferees will be able to agree on a figure that 
     represents the sense of the House, as evidenced by 
     yesterday's vote.
     
[[Page H 14194]]

       It is also my hope that the conferees will be able to 
     address the issue of the punitive cuts in my office and three 
     VA staff offices. These cuts were a reaction against what I 
     consider were my honest efforts to be sure that the veterans 
     community and the public were aware of the facts in the 
     budget debate. I understand the conferees reacting against my 
     outspoken advocacy for VA medical funding, but their action 
     will result in adverse personnel actions, through either 
     furloughs or layoffs, for many dedicated career civil 
     servants who are performing essential services.
       Once again, I want to thank you for your outstanding 
     leadership and your dedication to our Nation's veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jesse Brown.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to say too, that we very much appreciate 
our colleagues' patience with this process. It is not usual that we go 
back at a bill more than one time, and in this circumstance to have a 
bill recommitted by the House for a specific purpose is not the normal 
process. Because of that, we are taking up a good deal more of the 
House's time than would be normal.
  I think it is important for the Members to know exactly what the 
circumstances were at the time of that recommittal motion. At that 
point in time, there is little doubt that there were those on the other 
side of the aisle, some on this side of the aisle, who thought the 
President did plan to veto the defense bill. My colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], has referred to his own belief that 
there were several billions of dollars in the defense bill that the 
President had not sought and, therefore, he might very well veto it.
  The motion to recommit in part was in hopes with that veto that they 
would get more money for this bill and there could be additional 
dollars put back in the veterans programs. The fact is that that veto 
did not take place. So we are dealing with a specific and limited 
number of dollars within this bill.
  Just as important, I think it is critical for all of us to understand 
that we are on a pathway to attempting to balance our budget over a 7-
year period. Between this year and the year 2002, we hope to get to a 
balanced budget. If we are to do that, we must recognize that there are 
only a few bills around that have sizable numbers of discretionary 
dollars.
  This bill makes the single greatest contribution of all of our 
appropriations bills toward balancing that budget, a savings from the 
President's request of some $9.2 billion. Between now and the time this 
bill gets to the President's desk, he can still come forward and 
participate in a serious way in this process, if indeed he has some 
other adjustments or priorities that he would make.
  Please, have the President and his people come and talk to us. He has 
yet to suggest any change that would make this bill more satisfactory 
from his point of view. Between now and the time the Senate finishes 
its work, there is a narrow window of opportunity for him to do that. 
Otherwise, the President is playing politics with this bill rather than 
seriously seeking partnership by way of working with the legislative 
branch.
  I want to tell my colleagues that there has only been one major 
disappointment this year in this process. My disappointment lies with 
the difference I see between the way the majority and the minority 
worked with each other in the House versus the other body. I was most 
impressed by the fact that the other body found itself in the same 
situation we are in, limited numbers of dollars because we are in a new 
reality.
  We are attempting to reduce the rate of growth in spending and 
eventually balance the budget. Recognizing that in the other body, the 
Democrats and Republicans alike worked together in a very positive way 
within limited circumstances to try to accomplish a bill that met most 
of their needs. In the House, I am disappointed to say, we have not had 
that experience. I must say that one of my best friends on the other 
side of the aisle is my colleague and my ranking member, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I say to my colleague that it is a great 
disappointment to me that we have not been able to work together in a 
positive way in this new atmosphere.
  I do understand his and his colleagues' great disappointment with the 
fact that we are not in a situation where Congress is going to continue 
to just take last year's spending, increased by inflation, and then add 
on more. That has been the pattern for the 15 years I have served on 
the subcommittee. But indeed, in that new environment, I would have 
hoped we could have worked together in a positive way instead.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my distinguished 
chairman and my friend that I share with him the concerns that he has 
expressed in terms of the manner in which the process in the House has 
not been the same as it was in the past. As the gentleman knows, when I 
chaired the same subcommittee which he now chairs, I attempted at all 
times to involve the gentleman in the process and did so in a way where 
he was never caught in the dark as I have been caught in terms of this 
particular bill. I have not been included in the same way I included 
the gentleman. I just want to say to the gentleman I hope that he could 
have handled the matter a little differently.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I really 
did not intend to discuss this on the floor, but the reality is that 
this year we have given the gentleman information ahead of time in 
printed form. We have informed him well ahead of time. In the past this 
Member had these issues discussed the night before the bill went 
forward with no material to take home, no material to discuss. Indeed, 
we believe we have been radically more open than it was in the past.
  If I could continue with my comments, I am not sure, I must say, 
while I have expressed my disappointment, and I hope that my colleague 
and I will discuss this further in private, I do not know where my 
colleague would take the additional funds that he suggests that he 
would like to give back to the veterans by way of this recommittal 
motion.

                              {time}  1400

  I cannot believe that he is not appreciative of the reality that 
veterans' programs are increased in this bill. It is the only account 
that has an increase in this bill. Above and beyond that, every one of 
these other programs has been reduced. I do not think my colleague 
would want to take more money out of HUD. I cannot believe my colleague 
would be interested in taking more money out of EPA. I really do not 
believe my colleague wants to close down NASA.
  The reality is that this is a balanced bill, as balanced as it can be 
within the constraints of the limitations of this new age.
  Let me say that it is also important for the Members to know that I 
have not heard from one veterans' group that has not been satisfied 
with this bill. Indeed most recognized the reality, that they have an 
increase in this bill while no other agency has an increase.
  Further, I think it is important for our colleagues to know that 
should we decide in this body not to go forward with this legislation, 
then we are left with the continuing resolution and we are likely to 
have a continuing resolution for a very extended period. Under those 
circumstances every one of these accounts would be spending out at 
considerably less, perhaps as much as 25 percent less, than they would 
under this piece of legislation.
  This is a very, very difficult bill. It is complex obviously, but, 
most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this 
is the first serious effort to take a gigantic step in the direction of 
balancing our budget, the largest single contribution towards balancing 
the budget and moving down that pathway toward 2001. This is a good 
bill. It recognizes our constraints, and at the same time it recognizes 
our critical responsibilities to the people who are served by the 
programs that come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, and, 
Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion 
to recommit, and I urge my colleagues in the final analysis to vote for 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I submit the following material for the Record.

[[Page H 14195]]
  TH07DE95.000
  
   

[[Page H 14196]]
  TH07DE95.001
  
   

[[Page H 14197]]
  TH07DE95.002
  
   

[[Page H 14198]]
  TH07DE95.003
  
   

[[Page H 14199]]
  TH07DE95.004
  
   

[[Page H 14200]]
  TH07DE95.005
  

  
[[Page H 14201]]

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in opposition to this conference report and to 
the rule governing its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, last year 1,200 neighborhood law offices provided legal 
services to 1.7 million clients. The majority of these people were 
women and children living in poverty.
  The conference report before us today contains a two-part attack on 
the Legal Services Corporation, which last year provided about 60 
percent of the funds used by neighborhood legal service organizations. 
The balance of legal services funds comes from private attorneys, 
foundations, local charities, and State and local governments.
  This conference report continues the majority's assault on the 
weakest members of our society.
  The first part of this attack is to reduce Federal funds for the 
Legal Services Corporation by $122 million. This is a cut of 31 
percent.
  The second part of this attack is to restrict the type of legal 
services that the local legal services organizations can provide with 
their own non-Federal funds.
  Let me illustrate the unfair consequences of this restriction by 
sharing with the House a letter I received yesterday from Marcia Cypen, 
executive director of Legal Services of Greater Miami. She points out 
that Legal Services of Miami now uses non-Federal funds to represent 
aliens. Under this conference report, Legal Services of Miami would 
have to choose between giving up all Federal funds or else stop 
representing those aliens who are applying for admission as a refugee 
or for asylum. Many of these aliens have work permits and are working, 
but they are too poor to get private legal assistance. They must come 
to Legal Services of Miami if they have been beaten by their husbands, 
illegally locked out by their landlords, or cheated by a merchant.
  Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the majority to put restrictions on 
the use of Federal funds. But it is wrong for the majority to impose 
its ideological views on services provided by donations from private 
groups and State and local governments that believe it is important 
that all poor people have access to our legal system.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against this 
conference report.
         Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc.,
                                       Miami FL, December 5, 1995.
     Congresswoman Carrie P. Meek,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Meek: Thank you for requesting our 
     program's input on HR 2076 which includes funding for the 
     Legal Services Corporation in 1996.
       A crucial failing of the bill is that it precludes 
     representation of certain classes of aliens with non-LSC 
     funds. The particular classes of aliens affected are listed 
     on the attached page. On a practical level what this means is 
     that we cannot, for example, use non-LSC funds to represent a 
     Haitian woman who is beaten up by her husband, illegally 
     locked out by her landlord, or cheated by a used car dealer 
     if she has applied for political asylum and has a work permit 
     but her political asylum application is still pending. 
     Unfortunately, there are many aliens who remain in this limbo 
     situation for several years.
       Approximately five percent of our current non-immigration 
     caseload consists of aliens who will no longer be eligible 
     for legal services with non-LSC funds in 1996. This could be 
     remedied if Section 504 (d)(2) (B) were amended to allow non-
     LSC funds to be used to represent aliens not eligible for 
     representation with LSC funds.
       In addition, HR 2076 precludes us from collecting any 
     attorneys fees in 1996. This is inconsistent with the stated 
     goal of reducing LSC's dependency on federal dollars. Our 
     program has relied on income from attorneys fees to bolster 
     our budget, and the lack of this income in 1996 will reduce 
     our services even further.
       We appreciate your concern on behalf of the poverty 
     community of Dade County. Please let me know if you need 
     additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Marcia K. Cypen,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____


                               Memorandum

     Date: December 5, 1995
     Subject: Ineligible aliens under proposed LSC restrictions
     From: Esther Olavarria Cruz
     To: Marcia Cypen

       I have made two lists, which is necessary to better explain 
     who cannot be represented under the proposed LSC 
     restrictions:
       List of aliens who can be represented by LSC under the 
     proposed restrictions:
       1. Lawful permanent residents.
       2. Aliens who are the spouse, parent, or unmarried child 
     under 21 of a U.S. citizen and have filed applications for 
     permanent residence.
       3. Asylees (individuals granted asylum).
       4. Refugees.
       5. Individuals granted withholding of deportation (higher 
     standard that asylum--very rare).
       6. Individuals granted conditional entry before 4/1/80 (old 
     refugee category--almost no aliens now in this category).
       7. H-2A agricultural workers (limited to representation in 
     employment contract matters only, such as wages, housing, 
     transportation and other employment rights--very small 
     category).
       List of aliens who cannot be represented by LSC under the 
     proposed restrictions:
       1. Asylum applicants.
       2. Parolees.
       3. Special immigrant juveniles (undocumented children 
     adjudicated state dependents because of abandonment, neglect 
     or abuse).
       4. Battered spouses of U.S. citizens (unless otherwise 
     eligible under #2 above).
       5. Battered spouses of permanent residents.
       6. Aliens in exclusion or deportation proceedings.
       7. Aliens with immediate U.S. citizen spouses, parents, or 
     unmarried minor children who have not filed for permanent 
     residence.
       8. Relatives of permanent residents (unless otherwise 
     eligible above).

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report. The level of funding for VA medical care is $213 million below 
the level approved by the House earlier this year, and is almost $400 
million less than the President requested.
  The chairman of the subcommittee said they couldn't find any more 
money for the veterans. But where did they find over $800 million for 
the EPA? Why is spending for housing programs almost $1 billion more 
than the House-approved level?
  Members need to understand that the VA can't be opening new clinics 
when we don't give them the funds to do so. Yet that is what this 
conference report does.
  I believe that the bill falls short. It ignores the instruction that 
a majority of House Members voted for last week. It's wrong. We can 
find the money to do the right thing for veterans. The President is 
going to veto this bill anyway, and he should. We should not vote for a 
bill that doesn't honor our commitment to veterans.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 2099 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on the House position on Senate amendment numbered 4.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. With objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198, 
nays 219, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 843]

                               YEAS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     
[[Page H 14202]]

     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     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
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--219

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     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
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     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
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Fowler
     Istook
     Morella
     Pelosi
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1421

  Messrs. PAYNE of New Jersey, VENTO, HOYER, OBERSTAR, KENNEDY of 
Massachusetts, BRYANT of Texas, and CONYERS changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant the provisions of clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 844]

                               YEAS--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     
[[Page H 14203]]

     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bevill
     Buyer
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Fowler
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Pelosi
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schroeder
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1439

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for, with Mr. DeFazio against.

  Mr. BROWDER and Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay''.
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                       AMENDMENT IN DISAGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
disagreement.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Senate Amendment Number 63:
       Page 51, strike out all after line 20, over to and 
     including line 3 on page 52 and insert:
       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service in carrying out the orderly terminations of 
     programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (Public Law 103-
     82), $6,000,000: Provided, That such amount shall be utilized 
     to resolve all responsibilities and obligations in connection 
     with said Corporation and the Corporation's Office of 
     Inspector General.
       Page 53, strike out all after line 9, over to and including 
     line 7 on page 60 and insert:


                 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

       For program administration and management activities, 
     including necessary expenses for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library 
     memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; $1,670,000,000, which shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997.
       Page 60, after line 8 insert:


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Page 60, line 13, strike out [$28,542,000] and insert: 
     $27,700,000.


               motion offered by mr. lewis of california

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Combest). The Clerk will designate the 
motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

                         Amendment Numbered 63

       Mr. Lewis of California moves that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 63, 
     and concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said 
     amendment, insert the following:
       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Serivce in carrying out the orderly termination of 
     programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (Public Law 103-
     82), $15,000,000: Provided, That such amount shall be 
     utilized to resolve all responsibilities and obligations in 
     connection with said Corporation and the Corporation's Office 
     of Inspector General.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will 
each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion in disagreement that is before us involves a 
disagreement between the other body and the House relative to the 
funding of that program which is known as AmeriCorps. The actual 
amendment involved here increases the amount from $6 to $15 million, 
and provides a foundation whereby we will be moving toward termination 
of that program.
  Essentially it is a reflection of the will of the House, which has 
voted on other occasions essentially to terminate the funding for 
AmeriCorps, and that is what the motion of disagreement is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is really no point in spending much time on this 
amendment reported in disagreement. The issue here has little to do 
with the positions of the House or the Senate regarding the funding 
level for the Corporation for National and Community Service. The House 
bill would terminate the corporation and allow the use of funds 
previously appropriated to accomplish the orderly shutdown. The Senate 
bill appropriates $6 million to carry out the orderly termination of 
the corporation's activities. Obviously, the difference between the two 
bills is not great. The motion offered by the gentleman from California 
would provide $15 million for the corporation's termination costs.
  Technically, this motion violates the rules of the House, and under 
normal circumstances that would be the reason it is reported in 
disagreement. However, since the Republican managers of the bill chose 
to get waivers of the rules in about a hundred other instances where 
they violated the rules, I don't think that is the real reason.
  It would appear that the underlying reason the managers of the bill 
reported this amendment in disagreement is to allow an avenue for 
action if a further understanding on the prospects for administration 
approval of this bill can be reached. Given the administration's recent 
policy statement on this bill, it seems to me the gulf of differences 
is too large to be bridged without a sizable increase in the allocation 
for the bill, rendering this action futile.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just note the reason that I take this position 
is because in the statement of administration policy, which was 
received from the President's office, they make reference to the 
conference report including no funds for the President's successful 
National Service Program. It says if such funding were eliminated, the 
bill would cost nearly 50,000 young Americans the opportunity to help 
their community, through AmeriCorps, to address vital local needs, such 
as health care, crime prevention, and education, while earning a 
monetary award to help them pursue additional education or training.

                              {time}  1445

  Then it states emphatically the President will not sign any version 
of this appropriations bill that does not restore funds for this vital 
program.
  So, with these observations, Mr. Speaker, I see no need for lengthy 
debate on this matter, and would advise Members that I do not intend to 
seek a recorded vote on the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes], that there is no reason to have extended discussion on this 
motion in disagreement. I think it is important to say, however, that 
one of the reasons the motion is in this form is because we wanted to 
make a technical change that would allow the other body, under the 
rules of the other body, if it so chose, to amend this motion in 
disagreement further.
  Mr. Speaker, if between now and that time the administration is 
serious about wanting to rearrange or make adjustments in this bill 
that will lead to agreement between the legislative branch and the 
executive branch that would cause the President to sign this bill, 
there is that option. It is a very narrow window. It seems to be 
closing very rapidly.
  Mr. Speaker, should the President's people inform the President of 
this opportunity, it could very well be that we could have a final bill 
that is signable and thereby service these agencies in a fashion that 
makes sense. If the President chooses not to do this, it is likely to 
lead to a long-term continuing resolution that will cause all of these 
agencies to be funded at something like 25 percent below the 1995 year.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason, the motion in disagreement is in the 
form 

[[Page H 14204]]
that it is in. I would urge the Members to support my position on the 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Pursuant to House Resolution 
291, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________