[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4046-H4101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3019, BALANCED BUDGET DOWN PAYMENT ACT, II

  Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 104-538) on the resolution (H. Res. 415) waiving 
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill 
(H.R. 3019) making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 to make further 
downpayment toward a balanced budget, and for other purposes, which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 415 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 415

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3019) making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 
     to make a further downpayment toward a balanced budget, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 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.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will allow us to 
immediately consider the conference report on H.R. 3019. It is the 
Balanced Budget Downpayment Act II. The rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and its consideration, and it provides 
that the conference report be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a day that has been a long time coming as we 
wrap up the remaining five regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 
1996 whereby we will have a full budget in place for this year. 
Notwithstanding all the short-term continuing resolutions and all of 
the long, hard, and tough negotiations on this bill, the wait has been 
well worthwhile, in my opinion.
  This truly is a historic day when one considers that we are making 
this substantial downpayment toward a balanced budget that we promised 
at the beginning of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, on any bill of this magnitude, with all of the complex 
and all of the difficult issues to be resolved, I think it is fair to 
say that no one is happy with every aspect of the final conference 
agreement, certainly not this Member. But I would strongly urge every 
single Member to come over here and keep their eyes on the big picture 
of what this is all about, and what this is all about is, make no 
mistake about it, reducing the size and the role of this Federal 
Government and putting this country once again on a second fiscal 
footing by taking the first big steps toward a balanced budget by the 
year 2002, and this bill today does just that.
  The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that the fiscal 
year 1996 deficit would fall to $144 billion. That is not million, that 
is billion dollars, and that is $28 billion below last December's 
projection. And make no mistake about it, the Congressional Budget 
Office confirms that our actions on appropriation bills for this fiscal 
year have played a major role in bringing about this downturn in 
spending.
  Mr. Speaker, our final action today on these remaining five 
appropriation bills will contribute even further to that deficit 
reduction effort. When this bill is signed into law, and the President 
is going to sign it, we will have saved $23 billion from last year's 
spending levels alone. That is $23 billion below last year's spending. 
Who would have ever imagined we could have made such substantial 
strides? Just our first full year? And that is added to another, and 
this is important to remember, we have already cut $23 billion, but if 
we add that to the $20 billion in savings that we made in fiscal year 
1995, in savings and rescissions, when we add all that up, it means 
that we have saved some $43 billion since we took control of this 
Congress in January of 1995, $43 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, one can say we even outdid ourselves when we consider 
that we have saved $2 billion more than our budget resolution projected 
in discretionary spending, $2 billion more than we even said we were 
going to. That, my friends, is a record of accomplishment which we can 
all be very, very proud. I know I am. And it is one which will benefit 
the American people, and it will benefit the economy of this Nation, 
which means jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.
  Interest rates will be lower than the CBO projected; the economy is 
growing faster than the CBO projected; and inflation has been lower 
than CBO projected, all because we have had the courage to stick by our 
convictions and our commitments and to make those hard votes on the 
floor of this Congress, and, ladies and gentlemen, they were hard, but 
that is the only way we get this kind of savings to put the fiscal 
house in order of this Government.

  Mr. Speaker, what does all this mean? It means the $43 billion in 
savings we have made in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 translates into 
money we will not have to borrow. It means we do not have to borrow 
another $43 billion, it means less debt and it means less interest for 
our children and our grandchildren to have to pay, already $5 trillion 
in debt requiring $250 billion in interest payments alone annually. We 
are not going to add to that. It means an ever expanding economy with 
more opportunities for more jobs, better jobs, and better pay because 
we are reducing the cost of Government by bringing our own fiscal house 
in order.
  Mr. Speaker, that is really what this whole debate today in all 
about. Yes, there has been a great deal of give and take between the 
President and the Congress in these difficult negotiations. That is all 
a part of the political process. It is the toughest part to learn 
sometimes when one is principled and believes very strongly in the 
things they believe in. But the art of compromise is something that 
Ronald Reagan taught all of us that we had to live by in order to 
accomplish anything.
  But let me emphasize the fact that for all the areas in which some 
concessions have been made to the administration there have been 
offsets to pay for them, and we are going to hear during the next hour 
of debate all the restorations that were made, whether it was in 
education or the environment or in other areas. But every single dollar 
that was restored over what we wanted to cut has been offset with cuts 
elsewhere, so we have not given in one thin dime, and that is how we 
realize the savings we have today.
  In the process of arriving at this mutually agreed upon budget we 
have managed to eliminate, and this is so terribly important because it 
also is what this debate is all about, we have eliminated, that means 
we have zeroed out, 200 programs, while still paying for emergency 
supplemental funding for such things as disaster assistance, and 
goodness knows we have had enough of that with all the disasters 
throughout the country lately, and also our troop deployment in Bosnia. 
That is all paid for and yet we still have realized these very 
significant savings.
  Mr. Speaker, I especially want to commend the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, and his Committee on Appropriations for 
making the very hard choices and for sticking with our core values of 
providing a better future for this country by reducing the deficit and 
reducing that public debt.

[[Page H4047]]

  When we consider where we were at the beginning of this Congress, I 
do not think anyone would have predicted we would have been capable of 
this degree of success in just this short space of time. I think we owe 
a great deal of gratitude to the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman 
Livingston, who has worked hand in glove with our leadership and the 
Senate leadership in negotiating this final agreement.
  But, Mr. Speaker, let us be under no illusion that this is the end of 
these efforts. I do not want it to sound like this is all over and we 
have won, we have accomplished what we set out to do. We have a long 
way to go in the coming fiscal years to establish and to achieve that 
balanced budget and seemed so illusory just 2 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this final part of this year's 
budget we have lived up to our commitment to stick to, and this is 
important for everybody back in your offices listening, we are sticking 
to that glidepath of a balanced budget. We are even below the glidepath 
that we set back in January of 1995.

  That is why I am going to vote for this piece of legislation, because 
we have not used smoke and mirrors. We have not lied to the public. We 
are actually cutting the deficit down and we are staying on that 
glidepath. In coming years there will still be many pieces that are 
required to balance this puzzle, but if we stick to what we are doing, 
if we accomplish next year what we did this year, and we do it for 5 
more consecutive years after that, we will have brought this fiscal 
house in order and it will have saved this country from drowning in a 
sea of red ink.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support of this rule. I strongly urge 
support of the bill to finally put an end to this year's budget. By 
passing this, we will have finally adopted the 1996 budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Mr. 
Solomon for yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, all over the country today we should be hearing a sigh 
of relief. The 6-month anxiety we've been feeling about possible 
Government shutdowns has come to an end. The bill we will vote on today 
will make it impossible for my Republican colleagues to shut down the 
Government for political reasons again, at least until October 1st.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Democratic position prevailed. Today we showed 
that it is possible to cut spending while still supporting education, 
the environment, and community police.
  Throughout this budget battle Democrats held tough.
  Throughout this budget battle Democrats stood up for education and 
the environment and now that the budget battle is over the American 
people are having a sigh of relief.
  Because thanks to the Democrats in Congress 1 million children will 
still be able to get extra help in math and reading.
  Thanks to the Democrats in Congress our clean air and clean water 
acts will not be gutted.
  And thanks to the Democrats in Congress we can still put 100,000 
police on the street while not busting the budget.
  But even though this Republican budget game has finally come to an 
end it's 6 months overdue.
  If Republicans had worked with Democrats we could have kept the 
Government open. If Republicans had worked with Democrats we could have 
settled this 6 months ago and come a lot closer to giving the American 
people the kind of Government they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, there's one question the American people want to ask of 
Republicans in Congress, what took you so long?
  Why did you wait to open up the Government and why did you hold on so 
long to your education and environment cuts?
  I congratulate my Republican colleagues for seeing the merits of the 
Democratic defense of education, the environment, and community 
policing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California, Mr. David Dreier, My vice chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and my right arm. He is a Member of this body that 
came here with Ronald Reagan a couple years after I did, who helped me 
in introducing the first balanced budget ever to come on this floor. We 
did not get many votes for it back in those days, but by persevering, 
this gentleman, along with myself and others, have brought these 
balanced budgets to the floor.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered by that. Let me say, Mr. 
Speaker, that I want to join in extending congratulations to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman, to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and to others who have worked to 
bring about this agreement. Clearly, we have gotten to the point where 
we are taking a step, a step in the direction towards ending the 
concept of big government. This does not do it, but it is a step in 
that direction, and I am pleased that we are going to be doing that.
  During the arduous national debate on the President's massive tax 
increase back in 1993, the American people said, ``Cut spending 
first.'' There was a clear national consensus to balance the budget by 
reducing the waste in government and slowing the growth of Federal 
spending, not by increasing taxes.
  Our Contract With America was historic not for the specific policies 
proposed but for the unprecedented effort of political candidates to 
make substantive legislative proposals during a campaign and then to 
win the election and actually proceed with implementation of those 
promises. This was above all an effort to address the well-founded 
mistrust that has existed with the American people who had grown sick 
and tired of Presidents and congressional majorities, both political 
parties saying one thing in a campaign and doing another while in 
office.
  One of the fundamental tenets of our contract was to balance the 
budget by reducing Federal spending, not by raising taxes. The 
principle of the Republican Party resulted in a historic budget 
confrontation. The majority in Congress promised to balance the budget 
by slowing the growth of Federal spending and provide tax cuts to 
families so that people could spend their own money on their own 
priorities in the budget.
  The President opposed that effort and had more than enough support 
from the minority in Congress to enforce his vetoes. The unstoppable 
force met the immovable object.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report brings the appropriations portion 
of the fiscal year 1996 process to a close. That in itself is a very 
good and positive thing. It involves compromise, but it does not change 
the basic fact regarding this historic effort of the Committee on 
Appropriations over the past 16 months.
  With enactment of this legislation, the 104th Congress will have 
reduced Federal discretionary spending by $23 billion in fiscal year 
1996 spending. The Congress has saved the Federal taxpayers and, more 
importantly, their children who will pay for the Federal debt an 
additional $20 billion in rescissions from the previous fiscal year. 
The result has been the lowest projected deficit in 14 years and the 
single largest reduction in Federal spending since the 1940's.
  With the passage of this legislation, Congress will have terminated 
over 200 Federal programs. Congress has done what it promised to do and 
what the American people asked for. We cut spending first. Critical 
rhetoric will always to be part of politics, but one thing that cannot 
be said truthfully about the 104th Congress is that we have not done 
what we said we would do. We cannot fully reform 40 years of big 
government congressional policies in just 2 years, but today we are 
making a very good and important start.
  This is a bill that deserves bipartisan support, and I am convinced 
it is going to get it. It may be the product of a process that was not 
enjoyable to watch, but it is a product that is well worth supporting 
from both sides of the aisle. It is time to move ahead with fiscal year 
1997 spending issues. However, be assured this majority will remain 
fully committed to balancing the budget by cutting spending first, not 
raising taxes on hard-working families

[[Page H4048]]

to feed the bloated Federal behemoth. It is gratifying that we have 
finally gotten to this point. I hope very much that we sill be able to 
move as expeditiously as possible to pass this legislation.
  I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes, if you 
first do not succeed, try, try again. Well, 2 Government shutdowns 
later, 13 continuing resolutions later, 6 months after the deadline of 
October later, we have finally come up, finally come up with a 
bipartisan solution for this year's budget. What is it? It is trying to 
work together in a bipartisan way but not cutting and devastating 
education, like the Republicans did initially. Let me talk about a 
couple programs that are now fully restored that never should have been 
cut in the first place.
  Safe and drug free schools were cut by $265 million. When we ask 
children in our schools what is the biggest risk they face today, they 
do not say an algebra test; they say drugs. Yet, they wanted to cut 
that program. Now it is restored. This is a good bill.
  They also wanted to cut Head Start programs to keep our children 
learning that are at risk from dropping out, because if we do not keep 
them in school, they are going to get in trouble and go to jail, and we 
are going to have to build a prison. What would you rather do as a 
taxpayer? Educate our children or build jails and prisons later on?
  Third, title I programs that were cut back by 16 percent, now they 
are fully restored. Title I educates 7 million at-risk school children, 
teaching them the basics so that they can learn and become productive 
citizens and work in good jobs later on.
  Title I has been restored. Head Start has been restored. Drug free 
schools have been restored.
  I would hope that this would be a lesson that we here in Congress 
will begin to work together, Republicans and Democrats, because, Mr. 
Speaker, this is not a victory for the Democrats because we got this 
education money back in. This is a victory for the American people. 
This is what the American people want. They want to make sure that 
their children can get to school and a good school and that we try new 
ideas in making our schools work better. They want to make sure, when 
Newsweek has a cover story this week that colleges can cost $1,000 a 
week, that we help our students get a student loan or a student grant 
so that they could pursue higher education.
  This is the best investment we can make in this country, investing in 
education for our children. It never should have been cut the first 
time.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] said, we can cut 
spending first in Washington, DC, and cut back on committees and cut 
back on the overhead here and return money out of our budgets. But we 
should not cut education dollars for at-risk children. We should not 
use the budget axe on the most vulnerable people in our society, 
especially when we want these children getting good jobs and not ending 
up in trouble where they are even more of a tax burden later on.
  This is a lesson, Mr. Speaker. I hope for 1997 and 1998 and so on 
into the future that Republicans and Democrats will work together to 
protect education, to cut wasteful spending here in Washington first, 
and to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] for his very generous extension of time to me.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Just briefly, the previous speaker has called, recalled an old axiom 
that says, if at first you do not succeed, try and try and try again. I 
just recall back on February 1995, when the President of the United 
States presented this Congress of the United States his 5-year 
projected budget, which called for increases of more than $250 billion 
in the deficit each year for 5 consecutive years, that would have added 
another $1 trillion 250 billion to the deficit.
  In that same budget, he called for increases across the board. So we 
Republicans persevered. We were not about to increase the deficit by 
$250 billion annually for 5 consecutive years. We were not about to 
increase spending. By persevering and trying and trying and trying 
again, what we have before us today is the 1996 budget that does not 
call for increases of huge magnitudes, it calls for a $23 billion cut 
in actual spending.
  That is what we have accomplished by trying and trying and trying 
again, and we had a lot of good support from both sides of the aisle 
individually coming to that.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, the gentleman knows I 
respect him; he and I worked together on the Russian and Chechnyan 
issue. I would just say that I think, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield to me for a little bit of time here, I think that the budget that 
we came up with, the blue dog coalition budget, balances the budget by 
the year 2002. It cuts wasteful spending out of Washington. But we did 
not cut a dime out of education. We did not cut a nickel out of student 
loans. We did not cut a penny out of Head Start programs for children 
at risk.
  I think if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I can work 
together on some foreign policy issues, certainly we Republicans and 
Democrats can work together.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I think the gentleman may be right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], another member of the Committee on Rules 
who has had a great deal to do with putting this budget together over 
the last seven months.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens 
Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon]. Indeed, he has shown extraordinary leadership 
and persistence in getting us to this point. I congratulate him and, of 
course, all the others who have participated in what has been a very 
lengthy exercise.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this fair rule which allows us to 
consider H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress was elected to change the way Washington 
does business: Returning fiscal responsibility to the budget process 
and improving accountability to the American taxpayer. This omnibus 
appropriations conference report reflects those principles by 
finalizing an appropriations cycle that cut $23 billion from last 
year's levels. With its passage this Congress' total savings reach $32 
billion, the single largest real spending cut in Government spending 
since World War II.
  This Congress has changed the way Washington works in another very 
important respect--setting priorities. The Clinton administration asked 
for $30 billion more in indiscriminate spending but we insisted on 
applying the brakes. Instead of haphazardly funding every project and 
program, we have prioritized our limited resources and eliminated 
billions of dollars of low-priority spending, canceling 200 programs 
completely. We have recognized our responsibility to the victims of 
natural disasters and to our soldiers in Bosnia without breaking our 
contract with the American taxpayer. The concept of fiscal 
responsibility, which seems simple to most families in my district 
struggling to prioritize spending within their own budgets, marks a 
revolutionary change in the way this town does business. Despite some 
potholes that have slowed us down, we are on the road to a balanced 
budget.

  I would like to highlight one example from my district of how the 
Federal Government can do more for less. H.R. 3019 contains language 
authorizing a lease for expansion of a veterans outpatient clinic in 
Fort Myers. Built to accommodate 40,000 visits a year, the clinic 
served more than 51,000 last year, with many more on the waiting list. 
We have come up with a way to meet the need with just over a million 
dollars--far less than it would have cost to build an entire new 
facility.

[[Page H4049]]

  The issue comes down to fairness and providing the services where the 
veterans are. While many hospitals in the North remain half empty most 
of the year, the 150,000 veterans in southwest Florida currently must 
contend with one limited facility and denial of services altogether for 
non-service-connected injuries and illnesses. This lease, building on 
the innovations of the private sector, will allow more veterans to be 
served in a cost-effective manner.
  In past years, we have received authorization but have been denied 
the appropriation. Today's bill ties everything together. There will be 
no more excuses or loopholes--we will move forward and provide for the 
veterans. This should be the final chapter in a long and frustrating 
saga, as today we finally achieve our goal and keep our contract with 
southwest Florida veterans. I applaud the efforts of Chairmen 
Livingston, Lewis, and Stump for their hard work to get this done.

                              {time}  1445

  The issue comes down to fairness in providing the services where the 
veterans are. While many hospitals in the North remain half empty most 
of the year, the 150,000 veterans in southwest Florida who have moved 
from the North to southwest Florida currently must content with one 
limited facility and denial of services altogether for non-service-
connected injuries and illnesses, and that is just plain not fair, and 
it is not smart, and it is not good management. So this lease building 
on the innovations of the private sector will allow more veterans to be 
served in a cost-effective manner.
  That is the kind of change that we have brought about and, I think, 
the kind of change America is looking for, and I applaud the efforts of 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for 
their hard work in that area.
  Change for the better is not easy. It cannot be done in a moment. 
Those who unfairly or unnecessarily gain from the status quo resist 
change; we know that. But today the time has come to move forward. This 
is fiscal responsibility. There will never be a better opportunity to 
do what we should than right now.
  Mr. MOAKELY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the former chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues that 
this is a good clean bill and that there is no pork and no outrage 
here. But nothing is further from the truth. Some of my colleagues on 
the other side are going to be looking rather sheepish and hang-dog, 
and they properly should. The Republicans here are creating an 
indefensible giveaway of $645 million to Louisiana and New Hampshire in 
the forthcoming conference report on the CR. The $45 million will go to 
New Hampshire, $600 million will go to Louisiana.
  The pork is to reward two safe Republican States for abusing Federal 
taxpayers by using loopholes and accounting gimmicks to increase 
Federal matching payments they receive under Medicaid while depressing 
their own State spending. In other words, Federal spending goes up 
here, State spending goes down. These are scams which were popular in 
the 1980's during the Bush administration. They increased the Federal 
Government spending on Medicaid alone to a tune of $10 billion.
  Guess who the biggest abusers were? Louisiana and New Hampshire. They 
still are the two biggest abusers.
  In 1993 we cleaned the situation up after extensive hearings in the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. We passed a bipartisan measure to 
eliminate these abuses and to protect the Federal Treasury and at the 
same time to take and give consideration to the problems that the 
States had. We gave them 2 years to wean themselves from their 
addiction to these Federal payments and to get away from the Federal 
trough.
  Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues seem to be operating under 
the philosophy that no bad deed should ever go unrewarded. The CR is 
going to reward these States with more time at the Federal trough to 
the tune of about $645 million.
  Louisiana, by the way, will spend these moneys not for health, but 
they will continue to spend them for things like roads, highways, 
bridges, and the prison system.
  Incidentally, there are other States now who are living under the 
constraints of the 1993 law; that is, all 48 of the other States. It is 
interesting to note, however, that since this process commenced of 
Louisiana and New Hampshire seeking additional moneys to continue an 
abuse which was roundly decried as long ago as 1993, six other States 
are now asking that they be permitted to belly up to the trough so that 
they can get their share of the slop.
  For 48 other States whose Members of Congress are represented here, I 
ask if they can explain how it is and why it is that the Congress voted 
for a special Federal bailout for two States who simply failed to 
manage their budgets properly at the expense of their own State and at 
the expense of the rest of the Nation.
  I also ask my colleagues to be prepared to explain to the people of 
their States why it is after 2 years was given to these two States to 
clean up their act, they are given an additional time.
  I know that one Presidential candidate came back not long back from 
New Hampshire and that very shortly thereafter disappeared in the 
language of the Senate bill. I wonder if this ought to appear on the 
FEC report of that particular candidate.
  This happens to be a genuine outrage. It is a continued raid upon 
funds which are needed for important public purposes or for the purpose 
of reduction of the budget deficit and for the purpose of balancing the 
budget. These are funds which are being taken away from other essential 
and important uses, such as student loans, such as school lunches, such 
as education, such as research into health problems, such as improving 
the quality of life, to law enforcement, to protection of the 
environment, and they are going to two States which have roundly abused 
the system for years and which, under this legislation, are going to 
get the permission of the Congress to continue to abuse the public 
interests and public monies for special purposes, in a fashion that no 
other State is being permitted to do.

  But note, my dear friends and colleagues, this is but the first crack 
in the dike because now already six other States are saying, ``Well, if 
you are going to let Louisiana, if you are going to let New Hampshire, 
have access to these funds without responsibility, how about letting us 
do that?''
  So, I would tell my colleagues, prepare for a phone call from their 
constituents, prepare for a phone call from their Governor, prepare for 
the call from their State to let them share in this pork also.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, these same folks who shut down the 
Government now claim to be working in a fiscally responsible manner to 
balance the Federal budget. They are asking us to support a continuing 
resolution laden with $342 million in special-interest pork to help the 
Republican Governors of New Hampshire and Louisiana balance their 
budgets without violating their no new taxes pledge. It is easy. Here 
is how to do it:
  ``You run for Governor. You say you are not going to increase taxes. 
You overspend and run up a deficit. Then you call your political 
friends in Washington to bail you out with a little bit of money. You 
than can go back and run for reelection, say, `Look, I did not raise 
taxes, and I balanced my budget.' ''.
  The fact is the taxpayers in 48 other States are going to have to 
have their taxes raised or their spending cut so that we can have this 
little payoff to help these two Governors in New Hampshire and 
Louisiana.
  Every State in this Nation grapples with balancing their books. My 
State, the State of Ohio, is plagued by the rules, has made the tough 
choices to keep spending in line. We will never be able to balance the 
Federal budget if a couple of States that have particularly good 
political connections in Washington, or might have had an early 
Presidential primary, if those States are

[[Page H4050]]

overspending and get bailed out by the Federal Government.
  We have had too many bailouts in this Congress, we have had too many 
times in this new Congress, where pork has been the order of the day, 
``We have to have more pork in these bills in order to satisfy special 
interests.''
  Think, Mr. Speaker, how much pork we would have had to put in this 
bill if a certain other Presidential candidate had won New Hampshire. 
Think of what the price might have been, how much money would have had 
to be in this bill, in order to satisfy those demands in one of those 
States then.
  Mr. Speaker, if this is how the Republicans handle block grants, I 
want to know where my State can apply.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. One of the reasons we are 
here today is because of the outstanding work of the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations. We all owe him a great deal, and so do the 
American people.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me a little bit of time to respond, and, playing on that last 
statement, does the gentleman want to know why his State will not apply 
for this deal? I am sure that his State would probably argue that they 
do not want this kind of deal because the fact is that the State of 
Louisiana unfortunately has placed itself in the predicament from which 
it is extracting itself, and I stress that.
  I am not going to deny that abuses by various States around the 
country took place in the Medicaid Program years ago. They did. Two 
previous administrations of the Louisiana State government frankly 
abused the Medicaid Program; there is no doubt about it.
  But this administration that just took over a few short months ago is 
taking great steps to remedy the situation. In fact, some steps began 
at the end of the previous administration, because unfortunately there 
were abuses, they had to acknowledge there had been abuses, and they 
ultimately had no choice because of measures taken by the distinguished 
former members and the chairman of the Committee on Commerce to remedy 
those abuses. They were left with absolutely no choice at all. They 
recognized that they spent too much in Medicaid. The previous 
administration of Governor Edwards's found out that the abuse of the 
program must end. It was cut off by the Federal Government at the 
response of the investigations by Chairman Dingell, when he was 
chairman on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Now this new administration in Louisiana, that took office at the 
beginning of this year, has already made a billion dollars in cuts in 
their Medicaid Program. Only the State of Delaware and the State of 
Louisiana have made as many cuts in their optional Medicaid Programs. 
The provision in this bill would cap the Federal Medicaid payment to 
Louisiana at $2.6 billion, which is more severe and more austere than 
any other State in the Nation. This provision allows no growth beyond 
$2.6 billion, not even for inflation, this year, next year, and the 
following year. No other State in the Union is willing to take this 
kind of deal.

  I have heard the two previous speakers say, oh, well, every State is 
going to jump up and get this kind of deal. The fact is they are not 
asking and they do not want this deal, they do not want this formula. 
Louisiana is acknowledging mistakes and saying that they are going to 
live up to their responsibilities with new Federal guidelines and meet 
the responsibilities that they have taken on. The Committee on Commerce 
Republican leadership has said that because Louisiana is willing to 
forgo the growth in their program in the funding for Medicaid in the 
outyears, they have been able to provide all the States with additional 
growth in Medicaid dollars.
  So what we are doing in Louisiana is resulting in a template, a 
format for action that can be used with respect to other States. The 
Louisiana Medicaid provision we have included is similar to the 
provision that was included in the Balanced Budget Act and the 
Governors' Medicaid proposal.
  So this is not new stuff, this was not late at night, this was not 
snuck in in some smoke-filled room. This actually was on the books in 
the past. The Louisiana situation is an emergency. If this funding does 
not go forward one-third, maybe as much as one-third of the medical 
personnel in Louisiana who provide services to the elderly and to the 
indigent simply will have to be laid off immediately, not next year or 
the year after that, immediately.
  Now, this is an urgent situation, it is an emergency that is 
recognized by other Members, by both sides of the aisle and by both 
sides of this building in the Capitol of the United States as well as 
by the President of the United States, and that is why he is willing to 
sign the bill with this in it. He may not like every provision, but the 
fact is he has recognized that the State of Louisiana has acknowledged 
their problem, is willing to deal with it, and if other States were 
quite so forthright, they would adopt measures that parallel this.
  To meet the Congressional Budget Office's concerns and the White 
House's initial objections to the provision, the final Louisiana 
Medicaid provision in this conference agreement would only last through 
the State's fiscal year 1997, and then we have to go back and make 
appropriations if there is a cost to the United States of America.

                              {time}  1500

  In fact, in fiscal year 1996, the Congressional Budget Office says 
that what we have done costs the government absolutely nothing, 
absolutely zero, so all this talk about porkbusters is just 
fabrication. It does not cost the Government anything. Before we can go 
forward after fiscal year 1996, we have to begin to set out how we are 
going to pay for it.
  I do not believe this provision is going to cost the Government 
anything in the outyears, because Louisiana is working with the people 
in the Congressional Budget Office to show how this arrangement will 
actually save the American taxpayer money, and that they are willing to 
cap their Medicaid payment at a very much lower level than they have 
previously received, in order to get themselves over the hump.
  Had they cut themselves off cold turkey there would be a devastating 
shortfall that would have resulted in a reduction in services, medical 
services to the indigent in Louisiana, that simply would be 
unsustainable.
  What we are doing is smoothing the playing field and giving them the 
opportunity to get out from under what I acknowledge was a bad 
situation in the years past, but we are correcting it. And I commend 
the leadership of the State of Louisiana for stepping up to the plate, 
and I commend, frankly, the good people on both sides of the aisle, 
both Chambers of Congress, and the administration, for acknowledging 
that what we have here is the best solution to an abuse that took place 
long ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, it is always good for us to talk about the 
cuts. Everybody likes to have cuts and to get spending under control. 
But I am happy to see that we reinstated some of the real vital 
programs in education that were so sorely needed.
  However, there is one area of this budget that very much disturbs me. 
That is our veterans' facilities, our health care facilities. To me, I 
think what we are doing in this bill is absolutely, totally 
disgraceful. We are $400 million under the President's request on 
medical facilities for our veterans. We are $400 million short on 
construction.
  Let me just point out a couple things. My dear friend, the gentleman 
from Georgia, talked about the emergency in Medicare, that we had to do 
something. I visited these hospitals when the Government shut down. 
These people were literally working for nothing.
  To this day, some of them have not been reimbursed for the money that 
they had coming from the Government shutdown. Some of the nurses there 
are working two nurses a shift for 37 people in our VA hospital. It is 
an absolute disgrace what we are doing in this budget for the care of 
our American veterans.

[[Page H4051]]

  Mr. Speaker, I think that the American people ought to know from 
where some of these cuts are coming. Sometimes we need to put a human 
face on cuts. It is good to stand here and talk about how much we have 
cut and how much we are cutting back and all these things that we are 
doing, but we have to put a human face to it. It comes from somewhere, 
and it is coming from the veterans' $400 million in the medical 
facilities for our veterans who laid it on the line for this country. I 
think it is absolutely disgraceful the way we are doing the cuts on the 
veterans of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that sometime in the near future we can 
rectify this, because we are paying an inordinately bad price for the 
veterans who served this country so well and for the folks who labor in 
these hospitals. They were diligent, they were there when the doors 
opened, they were there when the patients needed them. Now, when it 
comes to ante up and get the money, we are going to cut. I think it is 
an absolute disgrace what we are doing to the veterans of this country.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the statements from the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, about the plight of the State of Louisiana. Louisiana 
is trying to handle its own State budget, but so is every other State 
in this country. What Louisiana is getting is a very sweet deal. It is 
a special treatment. It is pork barrel money. They are getting Federal 
dollars without doing what they are required under Federal law to put 
up for their own citizens who receive Medicaid benefits.
  The reason they are in this fix has nothing to do with the Federal 
Government. It has to do with the abuse by the State of Louisiana in 
the 1980's when they leveraged Federal dollars into the Medicaid 
Program and then did not even use it for health care. They used it for 
roads and they used it for prisons. They used it to balance their 
budget and they became addicted to that money. Now, because they have 
one of their own in a very powerful position, they are being singled 
out; they and New Hampshire, to get Federal dollars to help them meet 
their fiscal requirements.
  The State of California has a problem. Every State has a problem to 
make their budgets match income and outgo. Medicaid is a big cost. But 
the Federal Government should not be standing in the place of those 
State governments to take on their responsibilities.
  Put this in the context of what Republicans wanted earlier this year. 
What they wanted was a block grant with cuts in Federal and State 
dollars under the Medicaid Program, and the public that is to be served 
by those programs be damned. They could go without care under the 
provisions of what is substituted for the existing Medicaid Program 
under the Republican proposal. This is an outrage. It is unfair. It 
should not have happened.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record. First of all, 
Mr. Speaker, Louisiana has a law on its books, has had a law on its 
books since well into the 1970's, that Medicaid receipts and Medicare 
moneys cannot be spent on anything but health care in that State. It 
was not spent on roads and bridges, as the gentleman in the well 
previously alluded to. I am sure that gentleman in the well previously 
alluded to. I am sure that gentleman voted against the earthquake 
relief to California when that State needed help from this Federal 
Government.
  However, the provisions in this bill do not add a dime to the Federal 
deficit, do not increase spending in Louisiana one dime. It simply 
allows Louisiana to do something it has to do, and that is to correct 
the formula by which the State applied for and received its Federal 
funding all these years.
  The State used a system whereby Federal and State dollars were 
accumulated in its Medicaid accounts and then matched to make its 
Medicaid formula. That is no longer allowed. That was a system the 
Federal Government allowed to happen over these years, and now we are 
going to face a $1.5 billion shortfall for the most needy people in our 
State if this provision is not adopted.
  If any other State wants to freeze its accounts the way Louisiana is 
freezing them, come forward. That is what the bill provides.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, there were more displaced workers in the 
State of Louisiana when the oil industry collapsed than there are in 
the automobile industry, but when a vote was held on this Chamber and 
across the hall, unemployment compensation was extended to those who 
had been, unfortunately, adversely affected in the downturn in the 
automobile industry. It is something I would vote for again, but when 
the request was made for the oil and gas industry, it was turned down 
in both Chambers.
  The point I am making is simple. The State of Louisiana has held its 
head up proud and, by the way, done something some of these folks 
should have thought about: Delivered good quality medical care at under 
the Federal reimbursement rate, not taking a dime from anyone that any 
other State was not getting per capita. And instead of sending a 
committee down to learn how they did it better, we said, ``Let us 
punish them for not spending every dime in the Federal Treasury.''
  Now we have CBO saying, ``You are not costing the taxpayer and 
another State a nickel.'' Maybe that is what has offended the other 
side in this debate, that another taxpayer is not having to pay another 
dime to bail out an automobile company or a big city.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want the record to be very clear about the 
Louisiana situation. They did take Federal dollars on the claim that 
this was supposed to go to hospitals that served a disproportionate 
share of low-income patients. They put up some phony State dollars 
which were in fact Federal dollars, leveraged the Federal dollars to 
match it, and then used the additional Federal dollars for their own 
budget balancing, paying for roads and prisons.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, I want the record to be clear that the State of 
Louisiana has not underspent because they were more efficient and gave 
better care than other States in the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the State of Louisiana is going to increase 
the budget deficit in the following fiscal year, the next fiscal year, 
and the year after that by $300 million each year, and God knows how 
much more after that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. They are not being rewarded for their good deeds, Mr. 
Speaker, they are being rewarded for their bad deeds, by the power of 
those in their delegation that have been able to exact this special 
pork barrel treatment for the State of Louisiana.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think I have a better 
understanding now why the Republicans did not want to have the line-
item veto apply this year. It was this type of provision, this type of 
provision that allows the State of Louisiana and the State of New 
Hampshire to benefit at the expenses of taxpayers throughout this 
country. It should not be in this bill, it should never have been put 
in this bill, and it is a disgrace that we have this in a bill at a 
time when we are trying to work together to bridge the gap between the 
two sides of this House. I am ashamed that we have this in this bill, 
and I am sorry it is here. This was a good faith attempt by Members on 
our side of the aisle to reach a compromise.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

[[Page H4052]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would point out first that a previous speaker had 
talked about cuts in this budget on the floor here right now to the 
veterans hospital medical care delivery system. Let me assure the 
gentleman that this advocate for veterans will guarantee the gentleman 
that there is $400 million more in this budget than there was last 
year. It is the only increase in the entire part of this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, second, let me just say this. I introduced a balanced 
budget on this floor a number of years ago which called for a balanced 
budget in 5 years. I had one on the floor last year that did the same 
thing. One Member said to me, ``Jerry, how can you vote for this, when 
it does not really cut as much as you wanted it to?''
  I am voting for it because it truly does put us on the road to a 
balanced budget. We are within this glide path. That is why Jerry 
Solomon is going to vote for this bill today. It shrinks the size and 
the power and the role of this Federal Government. It returns it to the 
States. It puts us on an irreversible path towards that philosophy.
  I urge all of the Members to come over here, vote for this bill right 
now; vote for the rule, and then vote for the bill. The American people 
want you to do it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that another Member 
may be permitted to speak.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Objection is heard.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, I call 
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3019) making appropriations 
for fiscal year 1996 to make a further downpayment toward a balanced 
budget, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today, Thursday, April 25, 1996.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will each 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].

                              {time}  1515


                             General Leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3019, and that I may 
include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman form Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report on H.R. 3019 wraps up all the 
appropriations matters for fiscal year 1996. I hope that this is lucky 
No. 14, because that is the number of temporary funding bills that we 
have had to get to this final measure. It is well past time to closeout 
all matters and move on to fiscal year 1997. Its budget debate will 
begin next week. In fact, it is 6 months past time.
  This conference agreement honors the commitment of the Committee on 
Appropriations to reduce discretionary spending and put this country on 
a path to a balanced budget. It contains $163.7 billion in gross 
spending, lest anybody says there is not enough money in this bill, 
with $4.34 billion in offsets, for a net spending total of $159.37 
billion in total spending.
  This amount will cause overall appropriations to be $30 billion below 
the President's request and $23 billion below last year. When we add 
the $11 billion net savings from our rescission bill last year, 
actually $20 billion aggregate savings, we have cut discretionary 
spending by a net total of roughly $34 billion in 16 months. In the 
aggregate, it is about $43 billion.
  These numbers represent the termination of more than 200, two-zero-
zero, 200 wasteful programs and bureaucracies. They represent a slowing 
down of increases in other programs. They represent a realignment of 
priorities, and they respect the funding priorities of the White House, 
the Senate, and the minority party as well.
  For our part, we went into conference with the Senate determined to 
pay for all increases in spending, and I am pleased to tell the members 
that all increases proposed by the Senate are paid for. I am pleased to 
tell the members that $1.3 billion in disaster assistance supplementals 
are fully paid for; funding for Bosnia, for the floods in the 
Northwest, for anti-terrorism, and for additional assistance toward 
peace in the Middle East, are all paid for, not borrowed against the 
future, not added to last year's bill, but paid for.
  By law we did not have to do this, but that has been our policy, and 
we have continuously for the last 16 months abided by that policy.
  I am pleased to tell the Members that we provided $1 billion to 
national security priorities for our 40,000 troops in the Bosnia 
theater and $120 million to support the Mideast peace activities, again 
all paid for.
  In summary, by paying for all increases in spending, we have produced 
a bill that is still below our budget caps and, for a $163 billion 
bill, that is a significant achievement.
  Much of the controversy in this bill surrounds the environmental 
issues. It was the area of intense compromise, with roughly 7 issues on 
the table. Each represented a unique problem.
  First, we retained the House language regarding the Mt. Graham red 
squirrel. We gave the President waiver authority we do not believe he 
will need in the contentious Tongass and Mojave and endangered species 
issues. We modified the Columbia River Basin language. We dropped the 
timber provision that the Clinton administration originally indicated 
they wanted, and we dropped wetlands language which we thought 
addressed a redundancy in the EPA/Corps wetland permitting process.
  These were compromises, I stress, compromises. They were done in 
conjunction with the demands by the White House, but they were not 
everything that the White House wanted. They were compromises. They 
make everyone and no one happy, and in truth, most of these issues will 
be revisited again in a few short weeks as we commence the fiscal year 
1997 bills.

  I might add this bill reflects a number of priorities critical to 
Members on my side of the aisle. The Senate population language is 
dropped, underscore, dropped, and the medical school accreditation 
provision which has been so objectionable to those in the right-to-life 
community, again, was made permanent law for the first time, satisfying 
in both instances the people who are totally opposed to the concept of 
abortion.
  I also regret that the cap on the student loan volume was dropped. 
Again, that was in a matter of compromise, and I would hope that the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities would be able to 
address that condition and correct that anomaly as soon as possible.
  I would call our Members' attention to the reaffirmation of our 
commitment to our active veterans by increasing--I heard the word cut, 
that is absurd--increasing the medical care programs for veterans by 
$400 million above what was provided last year. The President in his 
budget, which was not altogether realistic, might have said that he 
wanted more money than that. This is a $400 million increase above last 
year.
  And we funded NASA and the Space Shuttle Program, and we made a 
tremendous investment in our Nation's fight against crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this was a compromise. We could not 
have this finished product without the dedicated work and steadfast 
assistance--although he adhered to his own philosophical and deep-
seated feelings that our side of the aisle is wrong and his side of the 
aisle is right--we could not have succeeded in reaching a conclusion 
without my colleague and friend,

[[Page H4053]]

the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
former chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. By all 
measurements, we are indeed an interesting team, but we have respected 
each other's priorities. We have communicated. We have worked well, 
separately and together.
  I also want to say that it has been a joy to work not only with Mr. 
Obey at the table but with Senator Hatfield, whom I will miss greatly 
when he retires, and to acknowledge the support and leadership and 
steadfast dedication to conclusion of this effort by Senator Robert 
Byrd.
  As well, I would say that frankly Mr. Panetta was a tough opponent in 
these negotiations, but it was a pleasure to work with him. I am glad 
for that because he came to the table with the intent to conclude this 
affair. We did reach a conclusion and I think one that all Americans 
can be satisfied with.
  Mr. Speaker, 20 years from now when the American people look back on 
this, when our children and our grandchildren look back at this point 
in history, they will not remember what happened to these issues that I 
have touched on, not one of them. They will not remember what they 
were. They will not give a darn.
  But they are going to look to those charts that show Government 
growing incessantly year after year after year up until 1995, and all 
of a sudden see it start to decline. That is what we have contributed 
to, $43 billion in savings in aggregating fiscal year 1995 and fiscal 
year 1996. We have started the trend to follow up on the words of the 
President of the United States when he stood right where you sit, Mr. 
Speaker, and he said, ``The era of big government is now over.''
  We are taking him at his word. The world has changed. We are headed 
in the right direction with this bill, which is a compromise. It is the 
best compromise we can get. It is supported by our leadership in the 
House and Senate as well as the White House, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I would like to insert 
several tables showing the details of the amounts in this conference 
agreement. 

[[Page H4054]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.074

 

[[Page H4055]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.075

 

[[Page H4056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.076

 

[[Page H4057]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.077

 

[[Page H4058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.078

 

[[Page H4059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.079

 

[[Page H4060]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.080

 

[[Page H4061]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.081

 

[[Page H4062]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.082

 

[[Page H4063]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.083

 

[[Page H4064]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.084

 

[[Page H4065]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.085

 

[[Page H4066]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.086

 

[[Page H4067]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.087

 

[[Page H4068]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.088

 

[[Page H4069]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.089

 

[[Page H4070]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.090

 

[[Page H4071]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.091

 

[[Page H4072]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.092

 

[[Page H4073]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.093

 

[[Page H4074]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.094

 

[[Page H4075]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.095

 

[[Page H4076]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.096

 

[[Page H4077]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.097

 

[[Page H4078]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.098

 

[[Page H4079]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.099

 

[[Page H4080]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.100

 

[[Page H4081]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.101

 

[[Page H4082]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP96.102



[[Page H4083]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this really is a very good day for this institution, and 
in my view it marks the end of a very dark period.
  The House does not run the Government. We do not execute the laws or 
administer the programs of this Government, but we do play a central 
role in funding the activities and responsibilities of the Federal 
Government. That in fact is the core of the responsibility given to 
this institution by the Constitution.
  I would say over the past year this House has failed to meet that 
responsibility to a degree that has no precedence in the history of the 
Republic. For more than 7 months, this House held most of the 
departments and agencies of this Government in a state of suspended 
animation. On two separate occasions it sent Federal workers--who by 
and large wanted to show up and do their jobs--it sent them home for 
what amounted to 27 days of forced vacations paid for at taxpayers 
expense.
  This Congress drove numerous hard-working small businessmen to near 
the brink of bankruptcy because they had the misfortune of having 
significant contracts with the Federal Government that were screwed up 
by the mismanagement of this place. As a result, there have been 
significantly increased costs to the taxpayer for purchasing services 
from those vendors in the future.
  This House, during that process, also denied services to millions of 
Americans who wanted passports or who wanted to visit national parks or 
who had become eligible for veterans' benefits that they were not 
permitted to receive.
  Today, finally, we can say that that nonsense for the remainder of 
this year is over, and for that I am very grateful. There will be a lot 
of people who want to claim credit for that, but in my view the people 
who really deserve the credit are the American people, because they 
turned in to what were some very complex measures.
  They began to realize that the budget that this Congress was 
insisting on was going to eliminate 40,000 title I teachers in school 
districts all across the country, teachers who would provide services 
to nearly a million kids, to help those kids learn to read and help 
those kids learn to deal with mathematics. The American people also 
came to realize that this Congress was trying to turn its back on the 
commitment that had been made to increase the number of cops on the 
beat by 100,000. They also found out that this Congress was trying to 
gut many enforcement rules to clean up the environment, and that these 
bills were being loaded up with special riders to help commercial 
interests to denigrate our environmental heritage for personal gain.

  And they sent a loud and clear message to this body that that is not 
what we were sent here to do. So today finally we have before us a 
funding proposal for the Federal Government that is not a great 
proposal. There are many flaws in it, many defects, but I would point 
out nonetheless it is a reasonable proposal, in contrast to the 
appropriation bills which worked their way through here previously. It 
is one that in major respects is consistent with the direction in which 
the American people want to go.
  It does save money. It saves the same $23 billion that were saved 
originally when the bills went through this House, but it saves that 
money in a far more fair way, in a far more balanced way. It protects 
the basic important activities that the public wants, the activities 
for which we in the minority have fought.
  It is time to pass this plan and move on. Surely everyone by now 
should recognize this fact. What this bill does today, in contrast to 
the prior appropriation bills, is to demonstrate that we not only know 
the value of a tax dollar but we also understand the value of human 
beings.
  This chart demonstrates that since January 1993 we have steadily been 
reducing the deficit. When President Bush left office, the deficit for 
that year was projected to be $327 billion. That dropped to $255 
billion; to $202 billion for the following fiscal year; to $162 billion 
last year, and the process continues under the passage of this bill.
  Two years ago, the last year that I chaired this committee, we cut 
408 programs. We eliminated 40 programs. That was the first year in 
post-war history when discretionary outlays of the Federal Government 
actually went down.
  That process is continuing, and we applaud that. But in the process, 
we have also been able to restore 92 percent of the money that was cut 
by this House originally for education. We have fully restored title I. 
We have fully restored Head Start. We have fully restored Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools. We have made healthy again the School-to-Work 
Program. We have increased the maximum Pell grant.

                              {time}  1530

  On the job training front, we have restored 90 percent of the cuts 
originally made by this House. In the area of worker protection, the 
30-percent cut below 1995 which was originally provided for worker 
protections at the National Labor Relations Board has been reduced to a 
3-percent cut. The cut of 15 percent for the enforcement of worker 
safety in OSHA has been cut to 2 percent. We have restored half of the 
reductions for the senior citizen job programs, like Green Thumb and 
Senior Aides. The Low Income Heating Assistance Program, which was 
eliminated by this House, has been restored to $900 million, plus $420 
million in carry-over funds. Six of the seven environmental riders 
added by this Congress are gone. Fourteen of the seventeen riders that 
were attached to Education and Labor provisions in the bill are now 
gone, and the other three have been modified to suit the objections of 
the President and the minority. So this is a decent product.
  I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], for having helped to 
finally achieve a bipartisan solution to this problem. He worked very 
hard and worked in a very bipartisan way, and I very much appreciate 
that.
  I want to express my deep thanks to Senator Byrd and Senator 
Hatfield. When you deal with those two gentlemen, as one member of my 
staff said, you know you are truly in the presence of people who are 
U.S. Senators and deserve to be thought of that way.
  I would simply say in closing also that I hope that we will pass this 
legislation and move on with the passage of our appropriation bills for 
the next year in a way which will never again shut down the U.S. 
Government. That does not have to happen.
  This legislation shows you can save money without ignoring the value 
of human beings, without ignoring the necessity to invest in human 
beings. It is a far less savage and far more civilized approach. I 
would urge support for the package.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the 
Budget for their great effort here. We have hit every target. A year 
ago the freshmen had some doubts as to whether we would get to all of 
these numbers. We have tracked them for over a year, and you have 
literally hit every target or are ahead of schedule. You deserve 
congratulations for that.
  When we arrived here a year ago, 73 freshmen came in here, and what 
we found is this. We found a deficit line, this red line on the chart, 
that was at $200 billion and growing every year indefinitely into the 
future.
  We took action. We passed a rescission bill, took $11 billion out. 
The appropriators went to work. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
gave them a number, and said $23 billion has to go. You have to come in 
$23 billion under the previous year, the first time in a generation 
this has been done. The appropriations did their job.
  This is where we were by December, but we dared to dream. We dared to 
dream that we could restore the future of this Nation and get us on 
track. This green line is the track, the glidepath to a balanced 
budget. We dared to dream about balancing the budget to preserve our 
Nation for our children.

[[Page H4084]]

  So we set a target for fiscal year 1996. That target was $157 
billion. What happened? The markets looked at this and saw the 
struggles we went through, and the markets reacted. Exactly as Alan 
Greenspan predicted they would, the interest rates stayed down. When 
the interest rates stayed down, it left this picture. It left the graph 
and went into real life. Because when the interest rates stayed down, 
our young people could afford to buy houses and cars, and when our 
young people can afford to buy houses and cars, the logical next thing 
that happens is somebody has to build those houses and build those 
cars, and that is jobs and job opportunities for our young people. 
Folks, this is exactly how America is supposed to work.
  But that was not the end of the story. When the markets reacted in 
that way and the appropriators fulfilled their commitment to our 
Nation, not only did we hit this target, you see, they were afraid, it 
was an election year, and other Congresses have been here, and Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II. But in this election 
year, this Congress not only did not fail, they hit their work, and 
they are actually $13 billion under what the projected deficit had to 
be in order for us to be on that glidepath.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for the future of this great Nation 
of ours.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior.
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was a conferee on this conference. I did not sign the 
conference agreement because I am very strongly opposed to the bill. It 
is true that in many respects after the negotiations that have taken 
place over these last few days the bill is better than it was before 
the negotiations. But in my opinion, the bill is so bad it is not 
susceptible to correction.
  For example, it badly hurts the Indian people, their health, their 
education. It hurts the national parks by taking money from essential 
construction and moving it over to operations. It hurts the national 
forests by increasing the timber cut, by building timber roads in 
ancient forests and jeopardizing habitat, wetlands, and environment. It 
sounds the death knell for the Endowments for the Acts and the 
Humanities. And by its use of sufficiency language in various 
paragraphs of the bill, it deprives the public from participating in 
the decisions that it would want to make in connection with the 
environment.
  There are many other deficiencies in the bill. Time does not permit 
going into them.
  A new tool has been added for legislation. There is a compromise that 
is based upon a phrase called the waiver. It is asserted that by 
exercising the waiver, the President can kill provisions that he finds 
unacceptable; for example, the provisions relating to the Tongass 
National Forest to which he had objected. This is a very strange 
provision. In effect, is it supposed to be a repealer of other 
provisions? Are the provisions supposed to stay in effect, even though 
they have been waived? To what extent is the waiver applicable? In 
whole or in part? Is it to be temporary or permanent? That is not 
clear.

  I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the President makes it clear, makes 
it very clear, that he will use the waiver immediately to clear up all 
questions, and that when he signs the bill, he will also have documents 
present which waive the provisions to which he objects and lets it be 
known that this is his purpose.
  At any rate, the President will have at hand the documents. I hope he 
uses them.
  There is much more one may say against the bill. I oppose it, Mr. 
Speaker, and I will not vote for it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], a gentleman 
who has worked very long and very hard on one of the toughest 
subcommittee bills in the appropriations, perhaps the toughest, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that the chairman has done yeoman work on 
this bill. If a person could live one day in his shoes, they would 
understand how hard Members of this body work to carry out the 
responsibilities of their office. The chairman has done an absolutely 
marvelous job.
  Under the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
Agencies portion of the bill, we began with spending for fiscal year 
1995 of $70 billion in discretionary funds. We cut $28 billion in the 
rescission package last year and we cut an additional $2.6 billion in 
this package, for a total overall reduction of about $5.4 billion. This 
reduction represents an 8-percent reduction from the previous year.
  That amount is less, Mr. Speaker, than the reduction in the original 
House passed version of H.R. 2127 which cut spending by 13 percent. 
This conference report, however, still represents one-quarter of all 
the savings in the nondefense discretionary accounts.
  My section of the bill terminates 110 programs from the fiscal 1995 
appropriation, not the 170 programs that the House passed version of 
H.R. 2127 terminated. Yet this conference report represents a 
substantial down payment on the elimination of wasteful, unnecessary, 
and high overhead programs. These services can be provided much more 
effectively and efficiently in broader State grant programs.
  The bill also provides increases in some programs because our job, 
Mr. Speaker, is to set priorities. The conference agreement provides 
increases for biomedical research, for public health, for the Job 
Corps, for school-to-work, for AIDS health services, for childhood 
immunizations, for Head Start, for breast and cervical cancer 
screening, for infectious and sexually transmitted diseases and for 
Social Security Administration costs.
  Although the conference report cuts 8 percent overall, level funding 
was provided for family planning and AIDS prevention. All of the block 
grant programs including substance abuse, mental health, child care and 
community services, were level funded. For title I--education for the 
disadvantaged, impact aid programs, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and 
special aid State grants the conference agreement provides level 
funding. With respect to student financial assistance, Mr. Speaker, we 
also level funded the TRIO and SEOG programs, as well as college work 
study. For Pell grants we provided the highest maximum grant award in 
the history of the program: to $2,470.
  Our job is not just making cuts though, Mr. Speaker. That is the 
message of this omnibus bill. Of course, our job is to control 
spending, but our job also is to examine every single program in 
government to see whether it can be done in the private sector or by 
State and local government and to set priorities.
  What this process means, Mr. Speaker, is better services for people, 
while bringing Federal spending under control. I commend the chairman 
for doing such a marvelous job. We have made great progress.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the full Committee on Appropriations for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. Make no 
mistake about it; this legislation is far from perfect. For the VA/HUD 
title alone, this report represents a reduction of nearly $8 billion 
from the amounts provided in 1995 by the 103d Congress. Most of that 
reduction, or $5.5 billion is in programs of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development that help the poorest and neediest of our 
citizens.
  A comparison of the VA/HUD amounts and provisions in this conference 
report with those in the original House-passed bill, however, does 
reveal vast improvements. For example:
  This conference report contains $1.6 billion more for the 
Environmental Protection Agency than the House bill, including $300 
million more for the Superfund to clean up hazardous and

[[Page H4085]]

toxic wastes in our communities, and $1.2 billion more for wastewater 
and drinking water grants, money that will be used by local communities 
to build and improve their water purification; H.R. 3019 contains $200 
million more for HUD's program to replace severely distressed public 
housing with smaller, more viable developments; it adds an additional 
$75 million to section 202 elderly and section 811 disabled housing 
programs; the report contains $400 million for the President's 
successful, Americorps Program, rather than termination as recommended 
by the House; it contains funding at or near the levels wanted by the 
administration for community development financial institutions [CDFI], 
the council on environmental quality [CEQ], and the Office of Consumer 
Affairs.
  Virtually all of the environmentally damaging limitations on EPA's 
funding have been deleted, including a provision which would have 
removed EPA's ability to review and veto development permits which 
would be injurious to our fragile wetlands; the provision transferring 
enforcement of our Nation's fair housing laws from HUD to the 
Department of Justice has also been deleted.
  Further, because of the Democrats' steadfast commitment to protecting 
children, hard working families and seniors, the bill contains a number 
of restorations in critical Labor-HHS-ED appropriations subcommittee 
budget accounts. The bill restores $625 million in funding for the 
summer jobs program. This means that over 500,000 low-income youth who 
want and need to work will have a job this summer. The summer jobs 
program had been proposed for elimination.

  The restoration of $1.2 billion in title I means that teaching 
assistance in basic reading and math will be restored to over 1 million 
disadvantaged children, who would have been denied the opportunity to 
learn under the earlier version of the Republican budget.
  The restoration of $900 million for low-income home energy assistance 
means that heating and cooling assistance will be restored to 6 million 
households. Without this restoration, these low-income families would 
have been forced to go without heat in the cold of winter, or cooling 
in summer's extreme heat.
  The restoration of $250 million to the Dislocated Workers Program 
means that assistance can be provided to workers who have been laid off 
through no fault of their own.
  These changes and many others make this legislation palatable, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it. The beneficiaries of this act will be 
the American people. Their voices have been heard. Their concerns about 
unreasonable reductions in education, worker protection, and 
environmental protection programs have been addressed. This bill does 
not do everything we would have liked, but it is a vast improvement 
over the original bill. Some critically important steps have been made 
in order for us to meet our obligations to improve the quality of life 
for the American people.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The President said that the era of big government is over when he 
addressed the House not long ago, and yet in many cases the President 
has not been true to his word. One example is the student loan program. 
Right now 40 percent of the student loan program is administered by the 
Federal Government, the other 60 by private lending institutions. Now 
the President has said he is going to veto this bill if 100 percent is 
not taken over by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? It means the cost to the taxpayers 
by the year 2002 will be 1\1/2\ billion dollars' more, $1 thousand 500 
million more for student loans than it would be if we let the private 
sector handle it. And yet the President said he is against big 
government. He cannot be against big government and be for this 
program.
  In addition, thousands of jobs in the private sector are going to be 
lost and put into the Department of Education to administer these 
student loan programs. If the President really believes in less 
government, he should believe in turning these loans, these student 
loans over to the private sector. The President's words ring hollow 
when he says the era of big government is over and then go for a 
program like this.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the very distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I appreciate his 
yielding. I want to thank and salute the gentleman and the chairman of 
the full committee for their tremendous work on this bill, especially 
in his efforts in this bill and the conference report to prevent 
unnecessary regulation and unintended consequences under the Endangered 
Species Act. Of specific concern right now is the proposed designation 
by the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service of critical habitat for the marbled 
murrelet.
  I understand that it is the intent of the conferees, in the event 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service is required by court order to 
finalize the regulation, the service is to consider fully all the 
comments submitted during the review period, including the comments by 
private individuals and State agencies. Further, if the service cannot 
consider fully these comments, the service should notify the 
appropriate court and petition for an extension. Am I correct?
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RIGGS. Am I also correct, Mr. Chairman, that Congress intends, 
under this legislation, that the Fish and Wildlife Service protect the 
private property rights of parties affected by critical habitat 
designations by using Federal lands to the maximum extent possible, or 
by taking other actions to ameliorate the impacts on private property, 
such as memoranda of understanding with State agencies? Specifically, 
the California Resources Agency has filed comments on the proposed 
critical habitat designation asking for revisions to reflect a 1991 
memorandum of understanding it has signed with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct. If the critical habitat 
designation goes forward, the Congress expects the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to protect the rights of private property owners. The service 
should seek to ameliorate adverse impacts on private property by 
actions such as using Federal lands and by complying with agreements 
negotiated with the States, including provisions for the use of other 
public lands in the State to the maximum extent possible before private 
lands are used. That includes the 1991 memorandum of understanding with 
California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for participating in 
this colloquy.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, just to correct some impressions, the 
moratorium on OCS drilling and the moratorium on the issuance of mining 
patents is still part of this omnibus bill. There has been some thought 
that these were removed, but they are very much a part of the bill. So 
I want anyone that is concerned to be aware of that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
for their hard work, perseverance, and endurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in grudging support of this budget deal.
  This is not a great bill. It is certainly not the bill I would have 
written. But it is the best bill that Congress can pass this year.
  We are at the end of a very long process that began over a year ago. 
From the very beginning it was clear that the Republican majority was 
determined to cut funding for vital education and environmental 
programs.

[[Page H4086]]

The bills that passed this house last year cut funds to our local 
schools by 16 percent, eliminated the Summer Jobs Program, and slashed 
the EPA by a third. Those bills would have reduced funding to New York 
City by Almost $600 million--or 18 percent. And when Bill Clinton 
refused to accept these draconian cuts Newt Gingrich deliberately shut 
the Government down--not once, but twice--in order to get his way.
  Thankfully, the President stood his ground and forced the Republicans 
to compromise. Cuts, confrontation and shut down have failed. The 
President remained firm and won.
  Let us pass this bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and, of course, Mr. Gingrich did not 
shut down the Government, that was the President.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to 
H.R. 3019. This bill brings to an end the fiscal year 1996 budget and 
appropriations cycle and in doing so cuts $23 billion over last year's 
levels and stays within our budget caps. Although I supported greater 
cuts in some areas, I am pleased that Republicans stuck to their guns 
and insisted that the downpayment on the 7-year balanced budget be 
made.
  I am especially pleased that the Mount Graham provision remained in 
the bill. The Kolbe amendment is quite simple and will not have any 
adverse impact on the environment. The provision reaffirms Ninth 
Circuit Court Judge Hall's and U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano's 
contention that the alternative site chosen by the Forest Service for 
the Large Binocular Telescope is in compliance with the authorizing 
legislation passed by Congress in 1988. Now that this issue is behind 
us, I anxiously await the beginning of construction of the world's 
largest ground based telescope.
  Nonetheless, I am frustrated by the inclusion of moneys for the 
Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] Program--the 
administration's bald attempt to tell State and local governments what 
they need to fight violent crime. Additionally, I oppose the continued 
funding for Goals 2000 even though Opportunity to Learn Standards and 
the National Education Standards and Improvement Council were 
eliminated.
  Even more frustrating is the continuation of the direct lending 
program that will transfer lending authority for college loans from the 
private sector to the bureaucratic Education Department.
  We have learned important lessons about this administration 
throughout the course of negotiating this bill. First, it is the 
administration--not Congress--that doesn't understand the art of 
compromise. I liken their negotiating skills to those of the losing 
team in backyard football--when up against a crushing offensive, they 
simply move the goalpost back a few yards. Congressional negotiators 
were often told an agreement had been reached and by the next morning, 
the resolved issues were back on the table--always with new items of 
disagreement. I know my friend Chairman Regula had this happen to him 
numerous times.
  The second lesson we have learned is that the administration talks 
about a balanced budget, but in reality they are unwilling to take the 
necessary steps to actually achieve one. As difficult as they were to 
negotiate with on discretionary programs, I am very concerned that as 
long as Congress has to deal with this administration, there is no hope 
of ever tackling the big budgetary issues that must be resolved in our 
mandatory programs.
  But this conference report does take an important step toward 
balancing the budget by cutting discretionary spending.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  With respect to the comments just made about the President's program 
of cops on the beat, the President was very clear about this, and Mr. 
Panetta was very clear about this since the beginning of the 
negotiations. They wanted to make certain that when all of the dust 
settled we had sufficient funding to guarantee to local communities 
that we would be able to put 100,000 new cops on the street. That is 
exactly what he asked for from the beginning. He moved no goal posts, 
and that is exactly what he got in the end.
  The President was steadfast on that issue, Mr. Panetta was insistent 
on it, just as they were on the other issues in the conference. We 
would not have a bill of this quality today without the insistence of 
the President and Mr. Panetta.
  I certainly want to suggest that anybody who suggests that the White 
House changed what it wanted is dead wrong. They made clear they wanted 
100,000 cops and that is what they got.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia. He has done a great job with a very difficult 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for his kind words. The 
Balanced Budget downpayment Act II includes the modified text of the 
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 1996.
  Members will recall that the conference agreement was adopted by the 
House on January 31 but not voted on by the other body primarily 
because of their opposition to a low income scholarship program. I 
deeply regret because of the other body's objections we had to delete 
that program. We were able to retain most of the other school reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the District's financial management, we 
have included, under section 152, language that clarifies the duties of 
the District's chief financial officer. That position was established 
under the legislation that created the financial board. The clarifying 
language places the directors of the financial management offices as 
well as all other District Government executive branch accounting, 
budget and financial management personnel under the CFO's authority. 
All these individuals will be appointed by, serve at the pleasure of, 
and at the direction and control of the CFO.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, all the Federal funds have gone to the District, 
they have had those in the past, and I would urge strong support for 
this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, there are several problems that remain 
with this conference agreement, some provisions that I do not support.
  I rise, however, to speak about the good and positive parts--those 
parts that would not be in this agreement if Democrats had not fought 
for them.
  Under the conference report, education funding will be $2.8 billion 
more than in the House-passed bill.
  Title I funding, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and the Summer Jobs 
Program will be restored to 1995 levels. We have those programs, 
because Democrats fought for them.
  The COPS Program will get $1.4 billion in funding, and we will have 
100,000 new police officers on the street by the year 2000, because 
Democrats made the difference.
  And, the Environmental Protection Agency is funded at $1.6 billion 
above the House-passed amount, because Democrats did not back down.
  This conference agreement is 6 months late, and that is unfortunate, 
but the restoration of funding is right on time.
  This conference agreement does not provide for the modest increase in 
the minimum wage that we have called for, but we will not quit until we 
reach that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Democrat who stands up for the 
average American.
  I am especially proud of the role that Democrats played, as the loyal 
opposition--keeping the faith, remaining true and constant, ever steady 
in insisting that we preserve and protect those programs and policies 
designed to keep America's priorities in balance as we balance our 
budget.
  This conference report, which provides funding for the remainder of 
this fiscal year for the nine cabinet level departments, agencies and 
programs whose fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill have not yet been 
enacted into law, recognizes and respect our seniors, our young and 
working families in America.

[[Page H4087]]

  The conference report provides a total of $382.6 billion--some $4.6 
billion more than the House-passed bill.
  Under the conference report, education funding will be $2.8 billion 
more than in the House-passed bill.
  That additional funding will allow this Nation to concentrate more 
directly on preparing our children to compete in an increasingly 
competitive global market.
  Title I funding, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and the Summer Jobs 
Program will be restored to 1995 levels.
  That is good and positive.
  LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, is funded by 
$900 million in 1996 and $420 million in 1997. Senior citizens will 
have comfortable homes because we did not waiver.
  The COPS Program will get $1.4 billion in funding, and we will have 
100,000 new police officers on the street by the year 2000, because 
Democrats made the difference.
  And, the Environmental Protection Agency is funded at $1.6 billion 
above the House-passed amount.
  In addition, all of the environmental riders, except one, have been 
dropped from the conference report or, at the very least, the President 
has been given waiver authority.
  Thus, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land upon which 
we live--God's most precious creations--have a better chance of being 
protected because we did not shrink from the budget battle.
  Because many of the deepest cuts have been restored, it is my 
understanding that the President will sign this conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, It is not easy to make noise while those who have the 
votes make policy.
  But, the genius of the first amendment allows those of us in the 
Minority to challenge, to question and to offer alternative thought.
  We did that, and because we did that, America will be a better place.
  This conference agreement is 6 months late, and that is unfortunate, 
but the restoration of funding is right on time.
  I intend to vote for this conference agreement.
  I am proud to be a Democrat, and I am proud to be an American.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Security.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the conference 
committee that presents this conference report today, and one who 
participated in a lot of the activities, but who observed, even more 
than that, the activities of the leadership of the full committee, I 
want to first compliment the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Bob 
Livingston, for the tremendous effort and the great amounts of time and 
the give and take that he had to work with, and the staff that worked 
with him during this whole process.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Minority Member on the full 
committee. This is an honest compromise. It is a true compromise. 
Everybody is claiming victory. That is good. When everybody claims 
victory, it must be something pretty decent here.
  I want to speak specifically to a very significant part of this 
conference report, and that is the provision of funding for the 
deployment of the American forces serving with such distinction in 
Bosnia.
  In the beginning, we can all recall, there was a lot of difference of 
opinion as to whether or not we should send Americans to Bosnia, but 
that decision was made by the President and American troops went to 
Bosnia, and they have and they are continuing to conduct themselves in 
an extremely efficient and effective manner. In this bill is part of 
the funding to pay for that deployment, to pay for those troops being 
there.
  So for those of us who really believe that we ought to support our 
troops no matter where they are, no matter what their mission is, this 
is the time to do it. Voting for this conference report is a vote to 
provide for the support and the funding for the American troops who 
have been sent to Bosnia on this mission.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act. Included in this measure is a bill I have worked on 
for more than a year now, the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which 
was introduced on August 4, 1995. This measure was drafted with the 
assistance and support of the administration, particularly the chief 
financial officers and the inspectors general.
  As the bill proceeded through committee, it commanded widespread 
bipartisan support. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] and 
professional staff member Mark Guiton were also helpful. Among the 
majority staff of the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, professional staff member Mark Brasher and 
staff director Russell George were the key staff on this legislation. 
My thanks go to all of the leadership staff and those on the Committee 
on Ways and Means and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
who have been helpful.
  This measure marks a long overdue beginning of our efforts to collect 
delinquent debts which now are in the tens off billions--over $100 
billion to be precise. This is a victory for the taxpayers of America. 
When this bill is implemented by the agencies, the Federal Government 
will find that its rising tide of delinquent debts can be stemmed.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following statement in 
report format which clarifies the legislative intent:

                Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1995

       This bill enhances Government-wide debt collection 
     activities by adding a new offset authority to 31 U.S.C. 
     3716; by creating a new exception to the Privacy Act (5 
     U.S.C. 552a); by revising the salary offset authority at 5 
     U.S.C. 5514; by requiring agencies to obtain taxpayer 
     identifying numbers; by permitting the reporting of non-
     delinquent consumer debt to credit bureaus; by adding a new 
     subsection to 31 U.S.C. 3711 that allows the Department of 
     the Treasury and other agencies to cross-service the debts of 
     other agencies; by extending the authority of agencies to 
     compromise claims; by permitting agencies to garnish the 
     wages of delinquent debtors; by permitting agencies 
     additional authority to sell delinquent debts; by revising 
     the Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Act of 1990 to require 
     adjustments for inflation every four years; by adding a new 
     section to title 31, United States Code, that allows agencies 
     to retain a portion of annual collections of delinquent 
     debts; by expanding tax refund offset authority; by requiring 
     that disbursements are conducted electronically; by requiring 
     that disbursements are associated with a taxpayer 
     identification number; by revising definitions at 31 U.S.C. 
     3701 to broaden the scope of the general debt collection 
     procedures; by providing for monitoring and reporting on debt 
     collection centers; and by giving the Attorney General 
     permanent authority to contract with private counsel to 
     collect delinquent non-tax civil debt.
       The debt collection authorities created under this bill 
     will enhance the cooperation of Federal agencies in 
     collecting Federal debt, by providing centralized 
     administrative offset and cross-servicing authority. It is 
     intended that the Department of the Treasury will act as the 
     coordinator of Government-wide debt collection activities, 
     providing a mechanism for effective administrative offset and 
     acting as a clearinghouse to assure that Federal debts are 
     collected in a timely and efficient manner.


              PART I--GENERAL DEBT COLLECTION INITIATIVES

                        General offset authority

       Short Title:
       Effective Date:
       Purposes:
       Expansion of Administrative Offset Authority:
       This section amends various sections in chapter 37 of title 
     31, United States Code, to cover judicial agencies and 
     instrumentalities. Currently, these sections only apply to 
     executive and legislative departments, agencies, and 
     instrumentalities.

             Enhancement of Administrative Offset Authority

       This section would create additional authority for 
     conducting Government-wide Administrative Offset at the 
     Financial Management Service of the Department of the 
     Treasury. Under this authority, Federal payment files would 
     be matched against Federal debtor files to determine whether 
     any debtors were receiving payments. Those payments would be 
     subject to offset to satisfy any Federal non-tax debt or 
     claim owed by the debtor.
       Subsection (a) amends the application of administrative 
     offset authority under 31 U.S.C. 3716 and the requirements 
     for charging interest and penalties on claims pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 3717 to include debts owed to the United States by 
     States and units of general local government.
       Subsection (b)(1) amends 31 U.S.C. 3716 to allow Federal 
     agencies to choose between adopting, without change, 
     regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice, the 
     General Accounting Office or the Department of The Treasury 
     or promulgating their own administrative offset regulations 
     consistent with those regulations.

[[Page H4088]]

       Subsection (b)(2) expands the application of administrative 
     offset to every instance except where a statute explicitly 
     prohibits the use of administrative ``offset'' or ``setoff'' 
     for collection purposes. This should increase the funds 
     available for offset from which delinquent claims may be 
     offset.
       Subsection (b)(3), renumbers certain sections.
       Subsection (b)(4), amends 31 U.S.C. 3716 by adding a new 
     subsection (c). This paragraph statutorily requires 
     disbursing officials of the Department of the Treasury, the 
     Department of Defense, the United States Postal Service or 
     disbursing officials designated by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to offset payments made by the United States to pay 
     delinquent claims certified to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     by creditor agencies in accordance with requirements issued 
     by the Secretary. This paragraph enhances administrative 
     offset authority contained in 31 U.S.C. 3716 by providing for 
     centralized administrative offset at the disbursing official 
     level. Currently, administrative offset is not conducted 
     centrally within the Federal Government and is not 
     effectively used. Disbursing officials of the Department of 
     Defense and the United States Postal Service and other 
     disbursing officials at any other Federal agencies will match 
     their certification records with the debtor records reported 
     to the Secretary of the Treasury by creditor agencies, in 
     order to avoid duplicative reporting by creditor agencies to 
     disbursing agencies, and assure that payments are 
     intercepted.
       Congress intends to include all eligible government 
     payments in this centralized offset program, including the 
     payments of all government corporations. Congress is 
     concerned at the growing trend of fragmentation of disbursing 
     authority, and support centralized coordination for the 
     purpose of collecting debts and conducting offsets. Congress 
     notes that because debt has been referred to the Department 
     of the Treasury for offset does not necessarily mean that 
     other debt collection tools (such as the use of private 
     collection agencies or wage garnishment) should not be 
     employed. The use of private collection agencies is long 
     overdue. Agencies should use all cost-effective tools 
     available to them to maximize the collection of delinquent 
     debts.
       Under subsection 3716(c)(4), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     is authorized to charge a fee to cover the cost of conducting 
     administrative offsets under this subsection, and to deposit 
     fees collected to a fund to be determined by the Secretary. 
     It is the intent of Congress that the fee will be collected 
     from the proceeds recovered through offset and the amount 
     charged to each agency be apportioned according to actual 
     offsets. See fees should be considered costs of collections 
     and should be borne by the debtor.
       Section 3716(a)(5), authorizes the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, in consultation with affected agencies, to issue 
     regulations and procedures to implement the administrative 
     offset authority. These regulations will include a provision 
     for dealing with the potential of simultaneous offsets 
     involving tax refunds under 31 U.S.C. 3720A and salary 
     offsets under 5 U.S.C. 5514.
       Section 3716(c)(6) provides that any Federal agency which 
     is owed a legally enforceable past due debt more than 180 
     days shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the debt 
     for the purpose of conducting administrative offset.
       Section 3716(c)(7) requires that the payee receive the 
     applicable offset notification.
       Section 3716(c)(8) makes it clear that tax levies shall 
     have a priority in collection from disbursements to be made 
     over requests for offset received from other agencies.
       Section 3716(d) clarifies that the Debt Collection 
     Improvement Act is not intended to prohibit the use of any 
     existing authority to perform administrative offset under 
     statute or common law.
       Subsection (c) revises section 3701(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, to define ``non-tax debt or claim'' for the 
     purposes of claims collection. The definition clarifies that 
     claims arising under the tariff laws of the United States are 
     considered non-tax claims.
       Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     offset amounts payable by the Federal Reserve to banks which 
     have wrongfully negotiated forged or fraudulent Treasury 
     checks.

Exemption From Computer Matching Requirements Under the Privacy Act of 
                                  1974

       This section exempts matches conducted for the purposes of 
     administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716 from certain 
     provisions of the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection 
     Act of 1988, as amended. This section would permit offsets, 
     and eliminate duplicative due process notifications, as well 
     as duplicative actions by agency Data Integrity Boards.

       Use of Administrative Offset Authority for Debts to States

       This section authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     enter into agreements for conducting reciprocal offset 
     agreements with a State. The Secretary has broad 
     discretion with regards to the terms of any reciprocal 
     offset agreement. Congress believes that intergovernmental 
     cooperation is in the best interest of the United States, 
     and that Treasury participation in a program of 
     intergovernmental offset is very important. Congress 
     intends that such agreements will allow States to report 
     the debts of any State agency or instrumentality, and any 
     legally constituted local subdivision or local government 
     within the State.
       Congress does not intend to apply Federal resources to the 
     collection of debts with very small denominations, or to 
     those where the debtor has not been given any applicable due 
     process rights. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     should ensure that the reciprocal offset agreements 
     authorized by this section protect the financial interests of 
     the United States. Congress anticipates that Federal agencies 
     will offset State debts in which there is no Federal interest 
     or Federal/State cost-sharing (such as State tax debts). 
     Similarly, Congress anticipates that States will offset 
     Federal debts in which there is no State financial interest 
     or Federal/State cost-sharing (such as debts owed to the 
     Customs Service). It is the intent of Congress that the 
     agreement be broadly in the mutual interests of Federal, 
     State and local government.

                  Technical and Conforming Amendments

       Subsection (a) makes several technical changes to title 31, 
     United States Code.
       Subsection (b) amends 26 U.S.C. 6103 to allow disclosure of 
     taxpayer information to the Financial Management Service for 
     the purpose of conducting offsets of tax refunds. This change 
     allows the tax refund offset program to be implemented at the 
     time of disbursement, and permits the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to consolidate its non-tax debt offset programs.

                 Enhancement of salary offset authority

                 Enhancement of Salary Offset Authority

       This section enhances current Federal salary offset 
     authority by expanding agency coverage and by establishing 
     annual matching requirements. Congress believes that 
     employees of the Federal Government should be held to an 
     exemplary standard and pay debts owed to the Federal 
     Government. This section makes Federal salary offset 
     mandatory.
       Section 5514(1)(A) amends 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1) by adding new 
     language requiring all Federal agencies to participate in 
     computer matches of delinquent debtor files against Federal 
     employee records at least annually. This provision requires 
     the Secretary of the Treasury to establish and maintain a 
     consortium to implement centralized salary offset computer 
     matching, and to promulgate regulations for that purpose.
       Section 5514(1)(B) and (C) facilitate the collection of 
     debts by salary offset by exempting routine adjustments from 
     the extensive and costly due process protections of section 
     5514.

                      Taxpayer identifying numbers

                      Access to Debtor Information

       This section amends section 4 of the Debt Collection Act of 
     1982 by requiring agencies to obtain taxpayer identifying 
     numbers from all individuals and entities doing business with 
     the Federal Government to facilitate the collection of any 
     receivables which arise as the result of that business 
     relationship. This section defines what relationships are 
     considered ``doing business with'' the Federal Government and 
     requires agencies to disclose the purpose of their request 
     for taxpayer identifying numbers. The taxpayer identifying 
     numbers are needed to facilitate the collection of delinquent 
     debts. Creditor agencies are authorized to verify the 
     accuracy of their debtor records with records from the 
     Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of 
     Labor. It is the intent of Congress that creditor agencies 
     have access to all relevant records at those agencies, 
     including any delinquent parent locator service and 
     unemployment insurance records.

    Barring Delinquent Debtors From Obtaining Federal Loans or Loan 
                               Guarantees

       This section would bar debtors who are delinquent on 
     Federal non-tax claims from receiving financial assistance in 
     the form of a Federal direct loan or a loan guarantee. The 
     intent of this section is to provide authority to Federal 
     agencies which administer credit programs to refuse to 
     approve credit to parties who are delinquent on Federal 
     claims to resolve their debts with the appropriate agency.
       Congress also considered extending this debarment provision 
     to other forms of assistance given to debtors. Agencies, in 
     coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, should 
     examine additional benefits, such as discretionary grants or 
     non-mandatory benefits, which could feasibly be denied to 
     debtors. Congress is pleased with the level of success 
     attained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service's 
     [INS] collection of inspection fees and the aggressiveness 
     with which INS has pursued debtors by denying inspection 
     services to airlines which are delinquent in the payment of 
     certain fees owed to the INS. Congress is concerned with the 
     growing delinquencies at the Customs Service, and note 
     disapprovingly that the Customs Service has not responded to 
     this situation by exercising authority to deny entry and 
     inspection to vessels whose owners are also delinquent 
     debtors. The Office of Management and Budget should direct 
     the Customs Service to use these additional tools to collect 
     debts owed to the Federal Government.

          Expansion and enhancement of collection authorities

  Disclosure to Consumer Reporting Agencies and Commercial Reporting 
                                Agencies

       Congress notes the success that the Department of Education 
     has achieved with the reporting of delinquent loans to 
     consumer reporting agencies. This section would allow

[[Page H4089]]

     agencies to conform to private sector practice by also 
     reporting current loans to consumer reporting agencies. This 
     will promote better credit information and good credit risks, 
     and especially help recently-graduated students entering the 
     workplace for the first time.
       Subsection (1) amends the credit bureau reporting authority 
     contained in 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) by requiring agencies to 
     report delinquent debts.
       Subsections (2) and (3) make conforming amendments to allow 
     commercial debts to be reported to commercial reporting 
     agencies.
       Subsection (4) requires agencies to require that any 
     participating lender in a guaranteed loan program provides 
     information relating to the extension of credit to credit 
     reporting bureaus. Congress is concerned that some agencies 
     do not comply with the existing guidance in OMB Circular A-
     129. In particular, the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development does not refer claims for assigned multifamily 
     mortgages to credit reporting bureaus; the Departments of 
     Agriculture and Veterans Affairs does not report nor require 
     lending institutions to report guaranteed loans to credit 
     reporting bureaus. Congress intends this section to fix this 
     deficiency, and that agencies will comply.
       Subsection (4) also allows the head of an agency to report 
     claims to a credit reporting agency which are current in 
     payment. This change allows Federal credit reporting to be 
     more consistent with private sector practice, and debtors 
     whose accounts are current with the Federal Government shall 
     receive the benefit of having favorable information provided 
     to credit bureaus.

                   Contracts for Collection Services

       This section permits agencies to contract with persons to 
     locate and recover assets and pay for such services out of 
     the proceeds that are recovered. The intent is to permit 
     agencies to pay ``finders fees'' to persons who locate and 
     recover assets of the United States the existence of or 
     location of which is unknown to the applicable Federal 
     Government agency.
       Congress notes that the U.S. Marshals Service provides 
     asset locator services for U.S. Attorneys in connection with 
     debt litigation, and is very successful at this task. 
     Congress further notes that this essential service is 
     hampered by limits on Full-Time Equivalents imposed by the 
     Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (FWRA) and a reliable 
     funding source. In view of this essential service, Congress 
     believes that the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget should grant a waiver to the FWRA and associated 
     Executive orders and that the Secretary of the Treasury 
     should consider using the existing expertise in the U.S. 
     Marshals Service in providing skip-tracing services to 
     supplement any private persons obtaining contracts under 
     this section.

  Cross-Servicing Partnerships and Centralization of Debt Collection 
              Activities in the Department of the Treasury

       Subsection (a) amends 31 U.S.C. 3711 by creating new 
     subsections (g) and (h).
       Section 3711(g)(1) requires the heads of executive, 
     legislative or judicial agencies to refer non-tax claims owed 
     to the Department of the Treasury for servicing, collection, 
     compromise or write off. The intent of this section is to 
     improve the debt management performance of the United States 
     by establishing a centralized cross-servicing mechanism 
     wherein Federal agencies that do not have the expertise, 
     personnel, or funding to implement effective claims 
     collection policies on their own can use the services of 
     Federal agencies that have effective claims collection 
     processes. This section provides the referred to transferred 
     non-tax claims will be administered by the debt collection 
     centers consistent with existing statutory requirements and 
     authorities.
       The Debt Collection Improvement Act, through its cross-
     servicing provision, provides independent authority for all 
     Federal non-tax debt to be collected by those Federal 
     agencies that are proficient in debt collection and have been 
     designated as debt collection centers. Agencies which 
     currently run large debt collection operations and should be 
     considered for designation as debt collection centers by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury include the Department of Veterans' 
     Affairs, the Small Business Administration, the Department of 
     Education and the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development. Each agency remains responsible for managing an 
     effective debt collection program and to use effective debt 
     collection tools, such as private collection contractors, 
     debt collection centers, and litigation through the 
     Department of Justice. Consistent with other initiatives in 
     the Debt Collection Improvement Act, general oversight and 
     operational responsibility for cross-servicing and effective 
     debt collection has been delegated to the Department of the 
     Treasury.
       Section 3711(g)(2) describes exemptions to the requirement 
     that agencies transfer debts to the Department of the 
     Treasury under Section 3711(g)(1). Congress carefully 
     structured these exemptions so that exemptions will only 
     apply to those debts associated with a demonstrated repayment 
     source. Congress believes the Secretary of the Treasury 
     should exempt from transfer under this section collateralized 
     obligations of the Government National Mortgage Association. 
     Congress cautions the Secretary of the Treasury with liberal 
     use of the Secretary's discretion in exemption claims from 
     the transfer requirement, and note that the Secretary is 
     responsible for government-wide debt collection. The 
     exemption from this requirement should only be provided when 
     it is demonstrated that an exemption is the best means to 
     protect the Federal Government's financial interest in 
     collecting the delinquent debt or claim.
       Section 3711(g)(3) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to designate debt collection centers. It is anticipated that 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall monitor the performance 
     of these centers, since ultimately, the Secretary is 
     responsible for the work they perform. A debt collection 
     center's degree of success, which is the basis of their 
     designation as a debt collection center, may be dependent 
     upon the type of claim referred to the center. In order to 
     fairly establish a performance baseline, the Secretary should 
     examine collection success of similar types and maturities of 
     debts at private collection agencies and at other Federal 
     agencies.
       Section 3711(g)(4) authorizes the referral of debts by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to a debt collection center, a 
     private collection agency, or to the Department of Justice. 
     In referring debts to private collection agencies, the 
     Congress has purposely given latitude to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to determine the most appropriate private collection 
     agent. Debts may be referred to a private debt collector, 
     collection agency or commercial attorney. This subsection 
     does not authorize a commercial attorney to represent the 
     Federal Government in a litigation action in the absence of 
     supervision of the Department of Justice.
       Section 3711(g)(5) describes the authorities and 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury with 
     regards to debt collection. It is the intent of Congress to 
     give contracting authority for the purposes of debt 
     collection to the Secretary of the Treasury broadly similar 
     to that given to the Department of Education. Congress 
     commends the Department of Education for the steps it has 
     taken to rely successfully on the expertise of private 
     collection contractors, and would like to see similar success 
     at the Department of the Treasury and at the Internal Revenue 
     Service in particular.
       Section 3711(g)(6) and (7) authorize the executive 
     department or agency operating a debt collection center to 
     charge a fee to cover costs of program implementation, and 
     provide that fees may be collected from recoveries. Congress 
     intends to give agencies authority to pay debt collection 
     centers and contractors from collection proceeds, and that 
     costs of recovery shall be borne by the debtor.
       Section 3711(g)(8) requires that amounts collected as fees 
     which are not needed for debt collection purposes in the 
     fiscal year shall be deposited into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       Section 3711(g)(9) requires that agencies take appropriate 
     steps in the collection process to collect delinquent debts 
     prior to writeoff or discharge, including administrative 
     offset, tax refund offset, Federal salary offset, referral to 
     private collection contractors or agency debt collection 
     centers, credit bureau reporting, wage garnishment and 
     litigation or foreclosure.
       Under Section 3711(g)(10) the Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized to issue regulations and procedures to implement 
     this subsection.
       Section 3711(h) authorizes agencies to employ a consumer 
     report to evaluate collection efforts with respect to an 
     individual. Such data can be particularly helpful in 
     evaluating whether to terminate collection action and 
     determine repayment schedules. Agencies should develop 
     policies on when the use of a credit report is appropriate 
     based on its cost and potential benefit.
       Subsection (b) creates a new procedure whereby agencies 
     may, in lieu of filing a return required under Section 6050P 
     of the Internal Revenue Code, provide to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, or his designee, the data necessary to accomplish 
     this task. It is anticipated that the Financial Management 
     Service will perform this task for the Secretary of the 
     Treasury. Congress is concerned about the problem of 
     inadequate reporting to the Internal Revenue Service related 
     to discharges of indebtedness. The Office of Management and 
     Budget, with the assistance of the Department of the 
     Treasury, should monitor agencies to ensure compliance with 
     the requirements of Section 6050P.

                          Compromise of Claims

       This section clarifies that the increased authority of a 
     head of an agency to compromise a claim under 31 U.S.C. 
     3711(a)(2) contained in the Administrative Dispute Resolution 
     Act is a permanent authority and is not subject to the sunset 
     provision contained in that Act.

                      Wage Garnishment Requirement

       This section authorizes agencies to garnish 
     administratively the wages of delinquent debtors. It is the 
     intent of Congress that every debtor that has a job or income 
     should be in a repayment schedule. The Congress considered 
     making this a mandatory tool, and agencies should consider 
     aggressive use of wage garnishment to compel repayment of 
     delinquent debts. The section also describes the procedures 
     that an agency must follow to administratively garnish a 
     debtor's wages, including a description of the debtor's due 
     process rights and limitations on agency authority.

                         Debt Sales by Agencies

       This section amends 31 U.S.C. 3711 to include a new 
     subsection (h)(1) authorizing

[[Page H4090]]

     sales of debts delinquent for more than 90 days. It is the 
     intent of Congress to increase debt sales where appropriate. 
     Debt sales are an appropriate collection tool which results 
     in the privatization of the liability for a debt and the 
     costs of collection. Congress is impressed with the results 
     of loan sales at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development. This example should be followed by other 
     Federal agencies which lack the administrative capacity to 
     manage their large portfolio of distressed properties.
       Section 3711(h)(2) requires that delinquent debts be sold 
     if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that such sales 
     would be in the best interest of the United States. It is the 
     intent of Congress that, to the greatest extent possible, 
     prior to terminating collection action, agencies should sell 
     delinquent debts in order to realize at least some amount of 
     the delinquent receivable.
       Section 3711(h)(3) describes the conditions of sale for 
     debts. It is the intent of Congress that agencies should be 
     able to sell debts while retaining some portion of equity 
     participation in the collection of the delinquent debt. This 
     form of structured security (sometimes referred to as a joint 
     venture between an agency and another person) allows agencies 
     to obtain income as well as the possibly of future payments. 
     Congress encourages agencies to employ the collection tool 
     that maximizes repayments.
       Section 3711(h)(4) requires agencies to develop an 
     inventory of loan assets. Congress intends to use this 
     information to evaluate the results of collections and loan 
     sales. The successful loan sales at HUD resulted in receipts 
     far in excess of the proceeds anticipated under the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act. Agencies should consider the results of 
     these valuations and compare them against collections.
       To assure that agencies use the most economically effective 
     means in collecting delinquent debt, agencies contemplating 
     the sale of unsecured debt should prepare a cost-benefit 
     analysis comparing the benefits of immediate sale to 
     collection using other debt collection tools, including 
     administrative offset, transfer to the Department of the 
     Treasury and use of private collection agencies.

                   Adjustments of Administrative Debt

       This section allows agencies to simplify the complicated 
     series of fines, interest and penalties required under 31 
     U.S.C. 3717. Congress views the requirement to charge 
     interest and penalties with great seriousness. The 
     disappointing performance of nearly every agency, with the 
     exception of the Department of Education, in assessing and 
     collecting these amounts should be improved. Congress directs 
     agencies to comply with the law, and for OMB to ensure that 
     this requirement is met.
       The intent of this section is to allow agencies option to 
     combine these fines and penalties into a single, easy assess 
     charge. Congress is aware of the inadequate systems agencies 
     face in assessing these amounts. Agencies that lack the 
     technical accounting expertise to comply with 31 U.S.C. 3717 
     should privatize the management of their credit portfolio. 
     the Department of Agriculture should rely on the expertise of 
     private contractors to improve the dismal collection 
     performance of its portfolio of farmers' home loans.

 Dissemination of Information Regarding Identity of Delinquent Debtors

       This section authorizes agencies to publicize the identity 
     of delinquent debtors to help collect debts. Congress notes 
     the success of the Public Health Service's program regarding 
     dissemination of the identity of doctors delinquent in the 
     repayment of medical school loans. The head of other agencies 
     should seek to replicate this success, and make this tool 
     more widely known among the debtor population. Congress 
     recognizes that this is a powerful enforcement tool and urges 
     judicious use.

                    Federal civil monetary penalties

        Adjusting Federal Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation

       Subsection (a) amends section 4 of the Federal Civil 
     Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to require 
     agencies to make an initial adjustment of such penalties 
     within 180 days of the enactment of this bill, and also 
     requires agencies to make additional adjustments at least 
     once every four years.
       Subsection (b) limits the amount of the initial adjustment 
     to ten percent of the amount of the penalty prior to such 
     adjustment.

                              Gain sharing

                  Debt Collecting Improvement Account

       Subsection (a) of this section creates a new section 3720C 
     in Title 31, United States Code.
       Section 3720C(a) establishes an account in the Treasury 
     entitled the ``Debt Collection Improvement Account'' 
     (``Account''). The Department of the Treasury shall maintain 
     and manage the Account.
       Section 3720C(b) provides that agencies collecting 
     delinquent claims may transfer into the Account five percent 
     of the delinquent debt collected during any fiscal year 
     beyond a baseline established for the prior fiscal year. The 
     Office of Management and Budget shall determine the baseline 
     from which increased collections are measured over the prior 
     year, taking into account the recommendations made by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with credit 
     agencies.
       Section 3720C(c) provides that the amount available for 
     expenditure in any fiscal year will be available for certain 
     purposes designed to improve debt collection, financial 
     management or asset disposition. Section 3720C(c) also 
     provides that the amount available to the agency will be in 
     proportion to amounts transferred to the account.
       Section 3720C(d) modifies the treatment of amounts credited 
     to the Account that are subject to the requirements of the 
     Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. That Act requires that 
     collections for direct loans and loan guarantees made since 
     1991 be credited to a financing account and included in the 
     cash flows used to calculate the subsidy cost of the credit 
     program. This section provides that collections that are 
     credited to the Account will not be included in the subsidy 
     cost calculation in order to avoid counting them both in the 
     cost calculation and on a cash basis.
       Section 3720C(e) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to issue regulations and procedures to implement this 
     section.

                      Tax refund offset authority

                 Expanding Tax Refund Offset Authority

       Subsections (a) and (b) change the exclusion of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by authorizing the TVA to 
     use tax refund offset.

            Expanding Authority To Collect Past-Due Support

       This section allows the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to choose between 
     using the tax refund offset authorities of either 31 U.S.C. 
     3720A or 42 U.S.C. 664 to collect past-due child support. 
     This change in Section 3720A of title 31 is not intended in 
     any way to hinder, restrict, or add any additional 
     requirements to the collection of past-due support under 42 
     U.S.C. 664.

         Offset of Tax Refund Payments by Disbursing Officials

       This section allows the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     implement the tax refund offset program through the 
     disbursing official of the Department of the Treasury (i.e., 
     the Financial Management Service). This will allow for more 
     efficient operations, as the Financial Management Service 
     also operates the administrative offset program. By merging 
     these two offset programs, the Department of the Treasury 
     will streamline and improve its operations.
       It is the intent of Congress that the Financial Management 
     Service should perform both the tax refund offset and the 
     administrative offset programs. This legislation makes 
     changes in those two programs so that their administrative 
     requirements are broadly similar, and can be performed by the 
     same entity, the Financial Management Service. This change 
     will allow the Internal Revenue Service to focus its efforts 
     on other management problems identified by it and Congress. 
     Congress intends that the Internal Revenue Service will 
     transfer the operation of the tax refund offset program to 
     the Financial Management Service.

                             Disbursements

                                Payments

       Subsection (a) mandates that all Federal payments to 
     individuals who become eligible for that type of payment 
     after 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act shall 
     be made by electronic funds transfer. Further, individuals 
     already receiving payments will begin to receive those 
     payments electronically after 1999. This section will 
     facilitate offset and improve audits associated with 
     counterfeit, stolen, forged and fraudulent checks.
       Since this section will require participating beneficiaries 
     to obtain a bank account, Congress expects the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to work vigorously to accommodate the needs of 
     the unbanked recipients through such means as: (1) the 
     planned implementation of a national electronic benefits 
     transfer system for Federal payments through the designation 
     of depositaries and financial agents under the Secretary's 
     existing authority. Under this program, recipients will 
     receive all benefit payments under a single access card; (2) 
     implement through the private sector consumer owned bank 
     accounts where recipients access their funds by debit card or 
     other means, rather than through traditional account 
     features, such as checking. This product is known as Direct 
     Deposit Too and is an extension of the Treasury's Direct 
     Deposit Program; (3) intensive marketing of the Treasury's 
     existing Direct Deposit Program for both individuals and 
     businesses; and (4) other forms of electronic benefits 
     transfer. The Financial Management Service should evaluate 
     several recent pilots, including its Direct Deposit Too and 
     various state pilots, to determine the best mechanism for 
     benefit delivery.
       The Secretary of the Treasury is given broad discretion to 
     waive the requirements of this section to avoid imposing a 
     hardship on a beneficiary. Congress expects the Department of 
     the Treasury to promulgate regulations addressing such 
     hardship waivers and to consider various factors in defining 
     hardship. Congress recognizes that adherence to these 
     provisions may be difficult for a variety of beneficiaries. 
     We are concerned that individuals who have geographical, 
     physical, mental, educational, or language barriers or as a 
     result of natural or environmental disasters will not be able 
     to receive benefits. Recipients in this category includes 
     small businesses as well as individuals. Waivers should be 
     provided in order to minimize disruptions to any beneficiary. 
     Additionally,

[[Page H4091]]

     the Secretary of the Treasury may waive this section for 
     recipients who reside in a country where delivery of an 
     electronic payment is impractical.
       The Congress further directs the disbursing official to 
     study the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of 
     those who currently do not have direct deposit and determine 
     how best to increase usage among all groups. The Congress 
     further directs the disbursing official to study the adequacy 
     of consumer protections available to individuals who are 
     required to obtain a bank account under this section.
       The exclusion of the application of this section to tax 
     refunds is to allow time for development of the necessary 
     infrastructure for making these electronic payments. However, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury should, to the maximum extent 
     possible, implement a system to disburse tax refunds 
     electronically and conduct demonstrations of other electronic 
     technologies to maximum outreach to recipients.
       Subsections (b) and (c) allow the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to issue substitute checks to repay Federal recipients whose 
     checks have been stolen, forged or fraudulently cashed. The 
     Check Forgery Insurance Fund provision would authorize the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to establish a flexible procedure 
     for facilitating the timely payment of forged Government 
     checks by providing a permanent and indefinite appropriation 
     which would ensure readily available funds to provide 
     innocent payees with replacement checks in a timely manner. 
     It enables the Department of the Treasury to comply with two 
     decisions of the Comptroller General Decision B-242666, dated 
     August 31, 1993 and B-243536, dated September 7, 1993. These 
     decisions concluded that the Check Forgery Insurance Fund Act 
     (31 U.S.C. 3343) requires that the Department of the Treasury 
     certify all checks issued to replace those checks paid over 
     forged endorsements and charged to the Fund.
       The Congress recognizes that many payees rely on these 
     payments for their basic subsistence and seeks assurance that 
     claimants receive checks in a timely manner; the prospect of 
     payees not receiving timely replacement payments is 
     unacceptable to Congress. Congress notes the importance of 
     the timely issuance of replacement checks, and that such 
     replacement checks should not be contingent upon the 
     Government's ability to recover the original forged check. 
     Congress also notes that in the case of an innocent payee 
     whose check has been forged, the Government's obligation to 
     pay remains outstanding. This provisions would provide an 
     equitable solution for payees and disbursing and program 
     agencies, by resolving current inequities inherent in the 
     current process of payment of checks bearing forged or 
     unauthorized endorsements.

Requirement To Include Taxpayer Identifying Number With Payment Voucher

       This section requires that Federal agencies include a 
     taxpayer identifying number when a payment is made. This 
     requirement will facilitate offset and increase collections. 
     Congress directs the disbursing official of the Secretary of 
     the Treasury and the Department of Defense to survey agency 
     compliance with this section and include the results of this 
     survey in the consolidated debt collection report to Congress 
     required under Section 1692 of this Act.

                             Miscellaneous

                Miscellaneous Amendments to Definitions

       Subsection (1) revises the definitions for ``administrative 
     offset'' and ``claim'' under 31 U.S.C. 3701 (a)(1) and (b). 
     These changes permit offsets of payments for the collection 
     of debts administered by States such as debts which contain a 
     Federal monetary component (e.g., AFDC overpayments due to 
     fraud) and delinquent child support obligations. The 
     definition of ``claim'' also includes amounts which the 
     United States collects for the benefit of any person under 
     statutory authority.
       In addition, the definition of debt has been amended to 
     include deficiency payments. Federal authority to collect 
     deficiencies has been upheld based on provisions of Federal 
     law preempting State laws governing mortgage debt (in all but 
     a few narrow circumstances). This authority has been upheld 
     by numerous court decisions (including Connelly v. Derwinski, 
     961 F.2d 129, 131; United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 
     387; and Burris v. First Financial Corp., 928 F.2d 797, 800-
     801).
       The Congress is concerned that agencies have not 
     established deficiencies as debt consistently. The Federal 
     Housing Administration uniformly establishes as debt and 
     collects deficiencies only in its Title I program. Congress 
     is concerned that debtors under FHA's other loan programs are 
     receiving different treatment. Deficiencies should be 
     established in all cases.
       Congress is also concerned that agencies do not monitor the 
     unpaid share of any non-Federal partner in a program 
     involving a matching, or cost-sharing, payment by the non-
     Federal partner. According to the General Accounting Office, 
     the non-payment of these types of matching payments has 
     become more common. Congress is concerned about this trend, 
     and wants to see those amounts collected.
       This section also adds specific definitions applicable to 
     administrative offsets under 31 U.S.C. 3716 for creditor 
     agencies and payment certifying agencies.

                        Monitoring and Reporting

       Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     provide guidelines to monitor the performance of debt 
     collection activities, in consultation with debt collecting 
     agencies.
       Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to report to Congress 
     on the progress of debt collection centers, defined under 
     subsection (c) as those centers providing debt collection 
     services for other agencies.
       Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary of the Treasury 
     will submit reports concerning the status of loans and 
     accounts receivable to Congress in accordance with the 
     Debt Collection Act of 1982. Formerly, reporting was 
     performed by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
       Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     consolidate all debt collection reports.

   Review of Standards and Policies for Compromise of Write-Down of 
                            Delinquent Debts

       This section requires the Office of Management and Budget 
     to review agencies' standards and policies for compromising, 
     writing-down, forgiving or discharging indebtedness and 
     various reporting requirements. OMB should rely on the 
     expertise and personnel of the Department of the Treasury in 
     preparing this report, which should be consolidated with the 
     annual consolidated debt collection report. However, OMB 
     needs to be very involved in ensuring that each Federal 
     agency complies with changes needed in their policies.
       Congress is seriously concerned about dissimilar standards 
     for discharging indebtedness at different agencies. This 
     needs careful monitoring. Congress is concerned that the 
     credibility of the Federal Government is undermined when 
     similarly-situated beneficiaries under one program receive 
     more generous treatment than those under another program.
       In addition, Congress is very seriously concerned about the 
     poor reporting of the discharge of indebtedness to the 
     Internal Revenue Service on Form 1099. The Office of 
     Management and Budget should ensure that agencies 
     consistently report these amounts or allow the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to report the data to the Internal Revenue 
     Service.

                        Justice debt management

                    Expand Use of Private Attorneys

       This section gives the Attorney General permanent authority 
     to contract with private counsel to collect delinquent non-
     tax civil debt when deemed appropriate.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York and soon-to-be-mother [Ms. 
Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Balanced Budget Downpayment Act and would like to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the entire Committee on 
Appropriations, and especially the gentleman from Kentucky [Harold 
Rogers], for their cooperation in securing $175 million for the 
Violence Against Women block grant, an increase of 573 percent over 
last year's Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill.
  In addition, thanks to support from the gentleman from Illinois [John 
Porter], this bill increases the Violence Against Women provisions from 
last year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill from $1 million to $53 
million. The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act also provides for $32.6 
million for family violence programs used to support battered women's 
shelters. When all is said and done, Violence Against Women programs 
will be increased by over 700 percent over last year's budget.
  This funding is necessary, Mr. Speaker, and demonstrates that today 
we can show that we can achieve a balanced budget while also 
recognizing important priorities for our Nation's future.
  Again, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the American people have won a great victory 
today. This bill represents the end of business as usual. We fought. We 
begged. We cajoled. And now we finally have convinced the President 
that fiscal responsibility is good politics. The gentleman from 
Louisiana, Chairman Livingston, has done that, along with his staff, 
and for that reason I salute him.
  This legislation is the right thing for this country at this moment 
with this President. It is not the perfect bill. I am disappointed that 
we did not get rid of more wasteful Washington programs. Goals 2000 
funds bureaucrats instead of teachers. AmeriCorps pays people a healthy 
wage to be volunteers, and the NEA pays for controversial and

[[Page H4092]]

sometimes obscene art. But Rome was not built in a day and getting the 
perfect budget will take more than one term in the majority.
  To my colleagues who would sacrifice the good in favor of the 
perfect, let me say, I admire your fidelity to principle, but let me 
also say that voting to cut $23 billion in spending, eliminating over 
200 wasteful Washington programs and doing all of this without raising 
one dime in higher taxes does not represent a sacrifice of conservative 
principles. No one could call me a moderate, but I am voting for this 
bill. I am voting for this bill secure in the knowledge that it is the 
right thing to do now at this moment in history.
  I give Chairman Livingston a great deal of credit for his 
determination and for his patience in negotiating this agreement. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this 
legislation. Send it up to the President and have him sign the bill 
that delivers the greatest savings to the taxpayer since the Second 
World War.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I should simply take this time, Mr. Speaker, to note, and I want to 
thank the conference for this, the conference agreed to add an 
additional 15 million for the Department of Energy's lab to lab 
program. Those funds can be used immediately to fund recently concluded 
cooperative agreements with six nuclear facilities in the former Soviet 
Union. The idea behind this is to prevent the surreptitious obtaining 
of nuclear material by potentially terrorist groups who might use it 
for nefarious purposes against any country, including our own. This 
program was set up to improve the security of nuclear materials, 
prevent leakage. The program is carried out through multiple channels, 
through governments, nuclear laboratories and institutes and Russian 
nuclear regulatory authorities. Anyone who has heard the recent reports 
about the danger of leakage of nuclear fissionable material from the 
NIS knows of the grave potential of the danger of such leakage. This 
will enable us to strengthen that program. I appreciate the cooperation 
of the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that from the 
very beginning when we were dealing with the appropriations spending 
bills this year, Democrats were making the point very vividly that it 
was possible to keep spending down, balance the budget and at the same 
time protect the priorities that we cared about, education, the 
environment, Medicare, Medicaid and some of the other concerns like the 
100,000 cops program that President Clinton had supported and put 
together for the last couple years.
  I think that today shows the vindication, if you will, of the 
Democratic point of view. We are moving an appropriation bill that will 
save significant amounts of money, billions of dollars, but at the same 
time it protects those priorities.
  With respect to the environment, which is one of my major concerns, 
although the amount of money is less than what the President asked for 
and what the President thought was necessary, we are almost back to 
what we wanted. And most importantly, we have eliminated those terrible 
anti-environmental riders that the Republican leadership had been 
touting for so many months. So I think this is a good compromise, but 
it is a vindication of our Democratic principles.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 of my 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to 
me. We have a number of speakers here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to point out, as chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Crime, that there are three contract with America 
crime bills that are incorporated in this today. The three that are in 
this bill that were contract with America bills are, one, a provision 
that would end the so-called prevention programs of Washington knows 
best that were in the 1994 crime act that many of us complained about. 
Instead in its place in this bill and in this legislation are a block 
grant to the cities and the counties of this country to spend as they 
see fit to fight crime to the tune of about $500 million for this 
coming year.
  In addition we have the version in the contract with America of the 
prison grant program that will ensure an incentive for truth in 
sentencing for States to have laws passed that require the serving of 
85 percent of their sentence of all felons.
  And last but by no means least, we have a provision in this bill 
which will mean that the States get back control of their prisons, that 
Federal judges no longer will be able to have the rulings they have 
been having on overcrowding. We lift the caps. We change the consent 
decrees. We say in the future that you will not have in addition 
frivolous lawsuits from prisoners.
  This is a monumental change in criminal law with regard to prisoners 
and frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Obey, who I think 
has done a magnificent job. I also want to take this opportunity to 
commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for his hard work 
over these 6 months on this particular bill.
  I think the product that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 
our colleague from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, have given 
us reflects well on the best of what this Congress can be about, had we 
put our minds to preserving the priorities of the country, the 
education priorities, the environmental priorities and the public 
safety priorities. I am particularly pleased that they took the time 
and devoted the attention and preserved the funding for the School-to-
Work Program, the Safe and Drug-Free School Program, which, as we all 
know, encompasses the DARE program, teaches our kids to stay off drugs, 
be against gangs and gang violence.
  With the Title I Program, 1.5 million kids in our country now will 
have the ability to have additional math and reading programs that will 
enhance their education and of course the direct loan program for those 
who are attending higher education at the collegiate level.
  We are pleased at the amount of funding that we were able to save 
over what the House did. In the area of the environment, we are very 
pleased that there were rollbacks in some of the raids on environmental 
safety. We have had 25 years of bipartisan support for the environment 
in this country, and I am hopeful that this report will move us back in 
that direction because initially, as Members know, as this bill or 
pieces of this bill left the House of Representatives, there was a 
serious attack on the environment of this country. So I am happy to see 
that they have made correction in this area.
  Also, in public safety, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the 100,000 
police officers on the beat are important additions. We thank both 
gentlemen for their inclusion in that.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], the distinguished chairman of the Legislative 
Subcommittee.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the conferees, people down at the White House and over 
on the Senate side for their work on this bill. It is a good bill. It 
is a bipartisan bill and, frankly, it is a compromise bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really not a question of whether the President won 
in this compromise, whether the Republicans won, whether Democrats won. 
The question really is, do the American people win. I think that is an 
overwhelming and resounding yes. Forty-three billion dollars have been 
cut

[[Page H4093]]

back in this bill and in the rescission bill earlier last year. Two 
hundred programs have been eliminated. Significant cuts have been 
extracted from many of the other programs and agencies, $144 billion 
deficit, when it was projected by the President that it would be over 
$200 billion.
  That is a huge turnaround for the American people. They are the ones 
that ought to rejoice in this. We ought to pass it overwhelmingly 
today. I am proud to vote for it. I am very grateful for the work that 
has been put into it by our leaders.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a victory for American values. 
It is a triumph of American's priorities in areas like education, the 
environment and Medicare, over the politics and the policies of 
government gridlock and shutdown. It shows the power of mainstream 
values in this Nation and the utter bankruptcy of the policy of 
extremism.
  It proves and demonstrates that in fact we can cut spending in these 
difficult economic times with a lack of resources and at the same time 
hold on to and preserve those values of education and the environment 
that this Nation holds dear.
  Mr. Speaker, we can remember the commentary in the past several 
months about a willingness to shut the Government down, not once but 
twice. We can remember the commentary about making the biggest cuts in 
education in this Nation's history. That failed. The proposal of 
disastrous environmental policies, they failed.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the steadfastness, today we vote on 
appropriation bills that protect America's priorities.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that liberals want to 
help in Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, just like 
conservatives do. Let us take the case where you tell one of your 
liberal constituents that you are going to have him give his money to a 
broker. That broker is going to take care of Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, and the environment. But then tell him he is only going to 
get 50 cents of every dollar he gets back and the other 50 cents is 
going to go pay for his staff and his overhead. That guy will tell you 
that he does not support that kind of an issue.
  That is what happens in this place. First place, it is not your 
dollar. You have to take it away from the constituent. Then you turn it 
around and give it back at a very low rate, for example, welfare. You 
only get about 30 cents on a dollar. Education, you get a very low 
percentage back on the dollar with 760 education programs.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are giving the money back, but 
we are doing it without raising a single tax, and we are cutting 200 
programs and streamlining government.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a monumental bill. It is $43 billion less than 
we would have had under Democratic control.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding this time to me, and I also thank him for his 
leadership, for holding firm for the priorities for the American 
people. I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  If it had been left to our Chair and our ranking member, a long time 
ago this issue would have been resolved. We would not have had to have 
a Government shutdown.
  But I commend the President of the United States for holding firm to 
his commitment to education, to protecting the environment, and for 
LIHEAP, and the list goes on of priorities which have been respected in 
this spending bill. It also has a large number of cuts, and I am 
dismayed to see that it still has $7 billion more in there for defense, 
as we subject all of our spending to such scrutiny.
  But it is a good bill, it is a compromise, and best of all it 
eliminates the very mean-spirited, I say that advisedly, mean-spirited 
language in there for HIV-infected people in the military.
  Today is a victory for democracy and for compromise, and I thank our 
chairman and ranking member for their leadership.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman that set forth the guidelines 
which we are now currently following in the appropriations process.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations and declare today a victory for the 
American people and a victory for the children whose future has been 
increasingly at risk, and I would like to say today that yesterday 
evening I was over in the committee that the gentleman chairs, and I 
got one of the older guys, one of the guys that has been around here 
for a long time, and I said, ``I understand that this is the most 
significant reduction in Washington spending since World War II.''
  And he said, ``You know, I am not so sure about that.'' And he went 
into one of these big thick books, and he blew the dust off and he got 
the paper out, and we started looking in 1945, and from 1945 to 1996 
they cannot touch us in any other year. This is unprecedented today 
since World War II. We have pried some of the money out of the hands of 
Washington bureaucrats, we have eliminated some absolutely absurd 
programs, including the program where we spent millions of dollars to 
eradicate ticks in Puerto Rico, where we spent millions of dollars to 
locate offices in Paris and all over Canada telling people, ``By the 
way, did you know there was a place called the United States? You ought 
to visit it sometime.''
  There is a program that says to children, ``We will give you millions 
of dollars to measure rainfall by collecting it.''
  Now, my colleagues, these programs have been going on forever, and we 
got in charge 17 months ago, and we told the American people we were 
here to change things, and we were here to strip power, money, and 
influence out of this city.
  This does not do it all, this is discretionary spending, this is 
Washington spending. It is only a third of the budget, but it is the 
only thing in which the President was forced to sit down and achieve a 
result, and to our credit we did not buckle, we did not cave, we did 
not collapse. And we have been able to achieve the single largest 
reduction in Washington spending since World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous accomplishment by this Congress, 
and I want to commend the chairman of the committee for his tenacity, 
and I want to commend all of my colleagues for their commitment to 
getting this job done. This is not the end all; this is just one very 
strong, first step in that long marathon of rescuing this country from 
economic anxiety, the fear that families have they will lose jobs, the 
problems of wage stagflation, wage stagnation, and at the same time it 
is a down payment that puts a little light at the end of that tunnel 
that our children will inherit a bountiful America.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest today that eliminating 200 programs, I 
would maintain that being able to pry some of the money out of the 
hands of Washington bureaucrats and eliminating 200 wasteful Washington 
programs that have gone on too long sucking dollars out of the 
pocketbooks of hard-working Americans, this is a great achievement, not 
just for this Congress but for the American people, and when we all 
leave here today to go home, we should be proud to stand up and tell 
our constituents that we finally have their message and that this 
Congress is going to continue to stand firm until we deliver the whole 
deal.
  Congratulations. Vote for the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The statement that the previous gentleman just made that this 
represented the largest deficit reduction since World War II is simply 
not true. The President's budget has brought down the deficit more than 
$100 billion. That is far larger than the reductions we see in this 
bill today. We welcome the add-

[[Page H4094]]

on, but I think we need to keep the facts straight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have to love the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget. He is trying to snatch victory from the drum beat of 
retreat to cutting education, cutting the environment, cutting programs 
that the American public have communicated to my colleagues, ``Do not 
touch them. Do not take our cops off the beat, do not take our teachers 
out of school, do not take our chapter 1 students and put them without 
any kind of help, because that is not good for the country.''
  And I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. He spins it 
as well as anybody in this House. But, my colleagues, I am pleased to 
see us abandon the CRs that I used to refer to as completely ridiculous 
to CRs that say completely, and perhaps that overstates it, but 
resolved the 1996 budget. Yes, it is 7 months late. Yes, it is after an 
unprecedented 25 days of shutdown. But, I say to my friend, the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, he pointed out incorrectly, as 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has noted, that it was not 
since 1945, and I hear the complaints that Bill Clinton has stood in 
the door of progress and vetoed legislation.
  Where was Ronald Reagan to accomplish this great objective of which 
the chairman speaks in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 
1988, and our friend, Mr. Bush in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992? Where was 
he when it was profligate spending? Where were they to say ``no.'' We 
never overrode one of their vetoes on spending. Not once.
  So, yes, now we have a bill that we are going to vote for; I hope 
everybody votes for this because it does, in fact, try to meet the 
needs of the American public, whether it is for education, public 
safety, health, or senior citizens health care. It tries to say we 
understand that we need to invest in the welfare of our people. This 
bill does it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long and arduous process. 
Putting together the revised export provisions for drug and device 
exports would not have been possible without the help of my good 
friends and colleagues, the chairman of the Commerce Committee Tom 
Bliley, and the ranking member on the committee, John Dingell. Their 
efforts have made our goal of allowing easier exporting of these 
important medical products a reality, and I thank them and their staffs 
for all of their hard work.
  As many of you know, I introduced H.R. 1300 in May of last year. Mr. 
Rich Rakow, a constituent of mine in southwest Michigan, who works for 
one of the drug manufacturers in my district came to me during a town 
meeting about a problem his company was having exporting its products. 
It seems that under our current export restrictions, it is virtually 
impossible to ship drugs or medical devices out of this country for use 
in other countries, even if they meet the needs and requirements of the 
importing country. I found this, well, unbelievable, and directed Jeff 
Myers on my staff to look into the matter.
  What they reported to me was troublesome, to say the least. 
Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other blood 
products were moving overseas, taking with them high paying, highly 
skilled manufacturing jobs. Part of the reason for this is the current 
inability of the FDA to quickly turn around products submitted to them 
for approval. The other part of the equation, however, is the export 
provisions that were put into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
in 1986.
  The goal of those amendments were simple. They attempted to open the 
door to the export of drugs to our trading partners overseas. 
Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The regulated industries 
have made very clear to me that these provisions are strangling their 
ability to compete, and this is causing an alarming increase of medical 
manufactures moving overseas. The compromise language included in the 
bill before us today, H.R. 3019, seeks to change this pattern.
   Senators Hatch, Kennedy, and Gregg,  Chairman Bliley,  Ranking 
Member Dingell, and myself, along with the FDA, worked on the language 
included in this bill. We worked to reconcile the differing language 
passed by the respective chambers included in the omnibus funding bill 
for fiscal year 1996. There is broad agreement on what the language in 
the bill means. I would like to discuss some of the ideas in the bill 
where there may be some misunderstanding in the future.
  It is very clear that the majority of the Members believe that the 
export provisions are a trade issue first and foremost. Restrictions on 
trade often mean the loss of jobs right here in the United States. 
However, Senator Kennedy  voiced a number of concerns with H.R. 1300, 
and its companion bill, S. 593. His major objection, as I understand 
it, was that the FDA would not have any control at all over the 
exporting of drugs and devices. With those objections in mind, the 
mini-conference set out to mete out a compromise.

  The FD&C Act, under this amendment, is altered to make it easier to 
export drugs and devices, as I have said before. It is also amended to 
make it generally easier to import unapproved subassemblies of these 
medical products, for the manufacture and export of finished products. 
This is very important.
  The plain meaning of amendments to section 801(e) of the FD&C Act as 
it relates to imports is that no subassembly which is brought into this 
country solely for the purpose of manufacturing products to be exported 
would be restricted, as long as the company keeps records of the 
imported product, and destroys any of the imported subassemblies that 
are not to be used for the manufacture of exported products. 
Furthermore, the importation of blood components, source plasma, or 
source leukocytes is permitted as long as the company importing these 
products follows the guidelines in Section 351(a) of the Public Health 
Service Act, or if the Secretary has set up appropriate guidelines for 
the importation of these products. It is my understanding that there 
are companies in the United States that process these products for 
other countries, and this provision is meant to allow this to continue.
  The addition of new provisions in section 801(f)(1) and (2) have also 
raised some issues within the drug and device community, and I would 
like to address these concerns. This amendment is designed to allow the 
export of FDA-approved drugs and over-the-counter [OTC] products with 
labels that may differ from the labels approved in the United States. 
As all of the conferees are aware, the FDA approves not only the 
molecular entity that makes up the OTC, branded and generic products, 
but it also approves the label with indications and contraindications 
for usage. Traditionally, the FDA has taken the approval process for 
products which need approval under section 505 of the FD&C Act to mean 
that this includes the label, and have therefore read section 801(e) as 
meaning that the product must be labeled in accordance with U.S. law.
  Furthermore, the language included in 802(b)(1)(A) has been reviewed 
by the FDA, which has given us complete assurance that this law will 
apply to the export of all OTC and prescription drugs, as long as the 
drugs are legally marketable in one of the countries mentioned in 
802(b)(1)(A), subsections (i) and (ii). This legislation does not 
require drugs to receive affirmative marketing approval if the laws of 
one of the countries mentioned in the bill do not require it.
  The framers of section 801(f)(1) and (2) mean this section to allow 
the export of FDA approved products, which are not approved in a 
country mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), to be exported directly 
to a country with a label required by that country. With the importing 
country's label, the product being shipped will not be regarded as 
misbranded or unapproved, specifically in respect to section 505 of 
the FD&C Act. Section 801(e)(1) of the FD&C Act states that ``a food, 
drug, device, or cosmetic intended for export shall not be deemed to be 
adulterated or misbranded under this Act--''. Clearly, the framers of 
the amendments included in H.R. 3019 mean section (f)(1) and (2) to 
follow the language in 801(e)(1) and allow for the export of products 
from the United States with a label which accords to the specifications 
of the foreign manufacturer without becoming misbranded. Furthermore, 
it is definitely the intention of the framers of this amendment that 
section 801 and 802 are not additive. In other words, products being 
exported under 802 do not have to meet the requirements of 801, with 
the exception of 801(e)(1), subsection A through D.

  The framers did not intend to limit or otherwise restrict the export 
of animal drugs, insulin, or antibiotics. It is my understanding that 
there is a possibility that 801(f) (1) and (2) can be read to limit the 
export of these products, and that was certainly not the intent of this 
Member, or other Members of this conference. It is my hope that the FDA 
will accommodate the concerns voiced on this section for these 
products. Before the end of this Congress, I have been told by the 
Commerce Committee that we will address this issue in a technical 
amendment.
  I would also like to address the section dealing with products for 
the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a disease which is not of 
significant prevalence in the United States Section 802(e)(1) is 
clearly meant to be another avenue by which companies, can export

[[Page H4095]]

products. Products exported under this section need not meet the 
requirements of section 801.
  Devices were also of major concern to the conferees. Devices were 
specifically not included in 802(b)(2), because the current FDA 
practice of allowing for the export of devices that have an approved 
IDE is acceptable to the conferees. It is important to note here that 
this section has to do only with drugs not approved in the United 
States, or in one of the countries mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A), 
subsections, (i) and (ii). As I understand the current procedure, 
devices can be shipped after being reviewed by the FDA to other nations 
if they have an IDE and not a general approval.
  Last, I would like to address section 802(f)(5). Again, these are 
labeling requirements for exporting products approved in the so-called 
tier one countries mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A), subsections (i) and (ii) 
to countries not mentioned in that section. It is most certainly the 
understanding of the conferees that this section is to be interpreted 
as written only for those counties which are not tier one countries. 
Furthermore, it is the intention of the conferees that this section 
requires the Secretary to consult with the appropriate health official 
before making a finding which might necessitate the stopping of 
exporting these products.
  I am sure that we will revisit this issue in the future. Frankly, if 
it were up to me, there would be almost no restrictions on the export 
of medical products to nations which allow them for sale. In my mind, 
the job of the FDA is to protect the health and safety of the United 
States, and it is not to play health product policeman to the rest of 
the world. If a product is manufactured in accordance with the 
requirements and specifications of a foreign government, then I believe 
that it is insane for this country to deny the opportunity to 
manufacture this product here. No other nation on the face of this 
earth restricts the manufacture of medical products for export, because 
they know the value of these manufacturing jobs. While I believe that 
this is a true compromise, and it is, I also believe that we can and 
should do more to liberalize the treatment of trade in health products.

  It's about time we begin again to export products--not jobs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the final 3 minutes to the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I have come 
to this Congress for one single fundamental purpose: to fight for the 
working and middle-class families that are at the very heart of this 
country.
  Throughout this very long and difficult budget process, we have held 
every policy and every proposal to a simple test: Does it make it 
easier for the lives of families that are working hard, trying to 
educate their children, trying to save for a decent retirement; or does 
it make that struggle even harder?
  That is why Democrats fought so hard for a budget that does not cut 
education, student loans, or summer jobs, or roll back clean air or 
water standards or abandon the 100,000 police that we so desperately 
need on our streets.
  This is not a perfect budget. This has been a difficult compromise on 
both sides. But I believe we have proven that we can cut the budget 
without cutting education or the environment, that we can rein in 
runaway spending without ravaging hard-working American families.
  Mr. Speaker, while this is a day for both parties to come together, 
America must not forget that, without the Democratic Party, we would 
not have kept our commitment to educate America's children, to keep our 
environment safe and to insure basic health and safety standards in the 
workplace. Without the Democratic Party, we would not have kept our 
faith with working families in the middle class.
  See, that is what the Democratic Party stands for. That is who we 
are. And that is why even after 2 Government shutdowns and 13 temporary 
spending bills, we would never ever give up the fight for education and 
health care and the environment and safe workplaces.
  I will never forget visiting an elementary school in Houston with the 
gentleman from Texas, Gene Green, and the gentlewoman from Texas, 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, seeing the young children playing with computers 
and learning to read in intensive after-hour classes sponsored by 
chapter 1, and seeing the hope and the joy of these youngsters in being 
able to learn. This budget is for those children and their families. Or 
being in New Orleans and seening the chapter 1 mothers and their 
children meeting, and hearing a young mother stand up and saying 
because of chapter 1 she was getting her high school degree and planned 
to go to college and said she wanted to get her masters degree because 
her children were enrolled in chapter 1 in an inner-city school in New 
Orleans.
  So I commend my Republican colleagues for letting us save those 
commitments and making this budget work for working families.

                              {time}  1630

  Today we celebrate a victory, not of party or partisanship, but of 
America's most basic and important values. Vote for this budget, and 
let it be a model of the kind of bipartisanship and working together 
that I will hope will mark the rest of this Congress.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, only to thank 
the minority leader for his last comments, and to thank the ranking 
minority member and all of the staff, Republican and Democrat alike, 
that have worked so hard in the House of Representatives to make this 
possible, along with all of the Members who have worked hard on the 
committee and off the committee. They made important contributions as 
did all of the participants in the Senate as well as in the 
administration.
  There was a lot of work that went into these 16 months, while this 
effort has gone on. We have a bipartisan bill, and I think in the final 
analysis, the American people are going to look back and say that 
Congress did their job under the Constitution, and government is going 
to get smaller because of it, and the people of America are going to be 
glad of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the very distinguished majority 
leader of the House of Representatives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey] is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The time has come for us to 
complete this work and have our vote. I would like to take a moment, 
though, and express my sincere congratulations and appreciation to the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and 
to all the members of the Committee on Appropriations from both sides 
of the aisle. This has been a long and arduous task.
  I could say, parenthetically, there was a time when I thought I might 
want to be on the Committee on Appropriations. I never had that honor. 
But I did have the honor this year of working very closely with the 
Committee on Appropriations throughout all of these 15 months of 
writing these bills, negotiating these bills, going through all of the 
discussions at the White House and with the other body, and for 
whatever it is worth, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Members, I thank the 
Lord that I will never be on the Committee on Appropriations, while I 
express, again, my appreciation for those Members who stayed with the 
task.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for America. I just enjoyed 
listening to the minority leader, my good friend, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], speak, as he does, for his vision for what is 
good for the American people; express again, as he does, his belief 
that what is good for the American people can be found in more 
government programs.
  We, too, express our vision for what is good for the American people, 
and this expression of vision is that the American people need relief 
from the burdens of the excessive size of government programs, so we 
bring forward here a bill that represents $30 billion less than the 
President's request, $23 billion less than what was spent last year; a 
bill that conforms with the budget that we all voted on just a few 
short months ago, and settles itself within the discretionary limits 
imposed and accepted by that budget.
  Mr. Speaker, it is good work, it is good work that reflects a 
commitment to the American people. We, too, love the future of our 
children and your children, and we love that future within the 
discipline and the responsibility of a Federal Government that is 
determined to live within its means, bring

[[Page H4096]]

itself to balance, and give relief from the burden of excessive 
government taxation.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the committee again, and I ask all my 
Members, appreciate the good work, appreciate the victory for the 
American people, appreciate the future it promises for the American 
children: Vote ``yes.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the language in the omnibus appropriations bill that would repeal 
section 415 of the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 1988, also known as the Frost-Leland amendment.
  Introduced by the late Congressman Mickey Leland, the provision 
specifically prohibits the use of Federal funds to demolish public 
housing units at Allen Parkway Village, a public housing project in my 
congressional district of Houston, TX.
  The language contained in the 1996 omnibus appropriations bill 
repeals this provision and states that the Housing Authority of the 
city of Houston may proceed with the demolition and rehabilitation of 
Allen Parkway Village, which according to the conferees is being 
delayed by the section 106 process under the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966. While the conferees do not amend the section 
106 process, they do state that ``the conferees do not believe that it 
is good policy to require the preservation of buildings unsuitable for 
modern life at the expense of low income families in dire need of safe, 
decent, and affordable housing.'' I agree, however, the determination 
should be made through an inclusive community process which has not yet 
occurred in Houston fully.
  I am very concerned about the fact that no hearings were held on this 
issue nor was I consulted about this language which affects my 
congressional district. I have spent a great deal of time working on 
this issue together with the residents of Allen Parkway Village, the 
mayor of the city of Houston, the housing authority of the city of 
Houston, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  I believe that it is necessary to clarify the issue of the importance 
of historic preservation to the cultural heritage of our Nation. Allen 
Parkway Village was placed on the National Register of Historic Places 
in 1988 and I can assure you that its historic significance is 
recognized in Houston. Historic preservation guidelines and regulations 
contained in current law have not delayed the process of rehabilitating 
facilities such as Allen Parkway Village in Houston. Indeed, the 
section 106 historic preservation process was completed in December of 
last year. I agree with preservation and demolition with planning. This 
sneak attack repeal doesn't bring the community together, it only 
divides it.
  I can assure you that in no way has the importance of historic 
preservation stood in the way of the need to provide affordable housing 
for low-income families. That is our goal and it is one that all 
parties in this debate agree upon. We can provide affordable, quality, 
and public housing for the citizens of Houston and we can do so while 
respecting the traditions and history of Houston's past and by 
respecting an inclusive community planning process.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my 
support for the omnibus appropriations agreement before us. I am 
gratified that many of the deepest cuts proposed by the Republican 
leadership have been eliminated and the environmental riders have been 
dropped from the conference report. The conference report also 
overturns a recently-enacted law that requires that HIV-positive 
personnel serving in the armed forces be discharged. While not perfect, 
this compromise bill goes a long way toward meeting the policy goals of 
the President and negotiators on both sides.
  In spite of the fact that this bill is 7 months overdue, H.R. 3019 
contains some provisions that are worthy of our support. The bill's 
funding levels for these provisions reflect the bipartisan support of 
many millions of Americans.
  I am particularly happy to vote for an omnibus package that funds 
vital education programs such as Title I and the Safe and Drug Free 
Schools Program. The conference report provides $2.8 billion more for 
education funding than the House bill, which included a 17-percent 
reduction for the 1995 levels.
  Title I, which provides extra academic assistance to help schools 
with large numbers of poor and disadvantaged children, would have been 
cut by more than $1 billion. In my State, this would have meant 
reductions of almost $130 million. In Sacramento, the school district 
would have been forced to eliminate as much as $65,000 for some of the 
neediest schools. Seven to eight schools and approximately 100 teachers 
positions would have been eliminated.
  Reading tutorial sites would have been closed and educational 
technology programs would have been eliminated affecting almost 3,300 
students.
  I am thankful that these essential programs will continue to serve 
the children of the Sacramento school district for another school year.
  I am also glad to see that my colleagues recognized the importance of 
the Cops-on-the-Beat Program. Rural communities and small towns like 
the ones that I represent, receive about half of the grants awarded in 
the COPS Program. Cities like Williams, Yuba City, and Red Bluff have 
all received the funds to hire more law enforcement officers. Rural 
crime is a serious, but often overlooked, issue. Our citizens want to 
reel safe from the threat of crime and COPS is the best way to achieve 
that.
  In addition, towns like Vacaville and Dixon have been able to 
purchase computers and the related technology necessary to deploy 
additional officers.
  New officers are able to walk local beats, get to know small business 
people and neighborhood residents, and gain the respect of the 
communities where they work.
  Had the majority succeeded in turning the COPS Program into a large 
and potentially wasteful block-grant program, small communities in my 
district would still be waiting for reinforcements. I believe that a 
vote for the omnibus package is a vote for more police officers and 
less crime.
  There are also several environmental provisions in this bill that are 
worth mentioning.
  H.R. 3019 preserves the congressional intent of the California Desert 
Protection Act passed in the last Congress by allowing continued 
protection of the Mojave Desert.
  Both in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor, I 
offered amendments to the Interior appropriations measure to make sure 
that the Mojave was properly managed so that this valuable resource 
would be adequately maintained for future generations to enjoy. With 
significant bipartisan support, Congress passed the California Desert 
Protection Act which gave the National Park Service and not the Bureau 
of Land Management jurisdiction over the desert.
  The back-door attempt to repeal this part of the Desert Protection 
Act was short-sighted and ran counter to Congress's commitment to 
environmental protection. The original act was subject to open and 
prolonged debate. If the Republican majority in this new Congress sees 
fit to change that, it should follow the same process, and not attempt 
to short-cut the legislative process through an appropriations measure.
  I urged President Clinton not to sign the Interior appropriations 
bill unless this environmental rider was removed. While the bill still 
includes the rider, it allows the President to waive its implementation 
if he so desires. President Clinton has assured me that he is committed 
to doing so. I want to commend him for standing firm on this issue and 
to commend the conferees for acknowledging its significance.
  The Park Service is ready and willing to work with affected interest 
groups to insure the Mojave Desert is properly managed. The Park 
Service, and not the Bureau of Land Management, is the appropriate 
guardian to insure that in years to come, the fragile ecosystem in the 
desert is not unbalanced by unbridled abuse of this precious resource.
  I'm glad to say that the omnibus bill that we are voting for today 
settles the debate for another fiscal year in favor of America's 
children and teachers, safety in our communities, and our environment.
  But ultimately, these last 7 months have been an unnecessary 
political exercise.
  These last 7 months have really been more about partisan grand-
standing and ideological purity than about seeking bipartisan 
compromise on behalf of all Americans.
  I believe that as this compromise shows, we can make our Government a 
leaner and more effective one without balancing the budget on the backs 
of America's working families, senior citizens, the environment, and 
particularly, our children.
  This is a good agreement but it is one that we could have and should 
have passed 7 months ago. I urge my colleagues to support this omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3019, the 
omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This bill is a fair 
compromise that reduces Government spending and keeps us on course to a 
balanced budget, while also providing adequate funding for education, 
environmental and other important programs. I applaud Chairman 
Livingston and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their 
hard work in forging this important compromise that allows our 
Government to perform its necessary duties within the limits we need to 
achieve a balanced budget.
  With the completion of this bill, we will save the taxpayers $23 
billion from the 1995 funding levels. Equally as important, the 
reductions in this bill are more fairly distributed to allow for 
improved funding for education, housing, environmental and other 
important programs.
  I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for addressing a number 
of concerns that

[[Page H4097]]

I and other Members had expressed about the funding levels for title I 
education support for disadvantaged students, antidrug education 
through safe and drug-free schools; fighting drugs in public housing; 
and funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. These programs 
will receive solid funding levels in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the top priority of this Congress must 
continue to be achieving a balanced budget. Balancing the budget 
requires limiting spending for virtually every program. Tough decisions 
have to be made. I have not always agreed with the priorities and 
allocations made for various programs. But this bill is a truly fair 
compromise that meets our most important criteria--balancing the 
budget--but in a fair and equitable manner.
  Again, I applaud the work of the negotiators and the Appropriations 
Committee and staff. I urge passage of the 1996 omnibus appropriations 
bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my 
sincere thanks to my Democratic colleagues from both Chambers of this 
Congress who were members of the conference committee. I know their 
work hours were long and the task difficult. I congratulate each of 
them for their contribution to this victory of people and good balanced 
policy over narrow-minded extremism. Each of them fought for and won an 
addition $5 billion for education, Head Start, the EPA, and other 
important programs. I thank you and I am sure this Nation's work force, 
children, and students thank you.
  I would also like to thank President Clinton for holding firm to his 
principles and the fundamental beliefs of this Democratic party. Though 
some would have you believe otherwise, the President has shown that it 
is possible to hold to these beliefs and balance the budget. It 
encourages me to see the President stand firm and not allow the 
destruction of our environment and to fight the Republicans' 
antienvironmental proposals. Thanks to him there will be no increased 
logging in the Tongass National Forest. There will be no moratorium on 
listing additional endangered species and there will be sufficient 
money for the EPA to successfully protect the environment that we all 
live in.

  In spite of this, Mr. Speaker, with the school year quickly 
approaching its conclusion, this Congress has not done all that it 
could to promote summer employment for our Nation's disadvantaged youth 
who are most in need.
  In H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations for fiscal year 1996's 
reconciliation package before us, the funding allocations agreed upon 
will only allow a paltry $625 million for the youth summer employment 
portion of the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] appropriations for 
1996. This is a $242 million cut when compared to last year's funding 
level of $867 million.
  Had the summer jobs portion of the JTPA appropriations been held to 
last year's levels, Houston would have received $9.1 million. This 
level of funding would have resulted in over 6,000 jobs for Houston 
youth.
  These are our children. They are not a world away but only a few 
blocks from where I am standing. They live in the very neighborhoods 
that surround this Capitol Building. They are in the streets of the 
cities and towns each of us represents. They are from all races, 
religions, and cultures. They are the faces of young, bright, creative, 
optimistic people who we see every day. They share only one thing in 
common. They are unfortunate enough to have been born into the families 
of our Nation's poor.
  I know from personal experience that a summer job for those young 
people enrolled by JTPA-sponsored projects around this country is more 
than just an opportunity to save money for the next school year, it is 
an opportunity to learn and gain valuable experience which is outside 
of their limited life experiences.
  The stinginess of this Congress was by no means limited to our 
Nation's youth, it extends into the other areas: the funding for 
training dislocated workers was reduced $129 million from last year's 
funding levels, funds for adult training programs were cut by $147 
million in the conference reconciliation package before us today.
  The only positive that I can speak on regarding the labor portion of 
this bill is the $16 million increase in the funding for the Jobs 
Corps.
  With regards to education, I am pleased that once again, because of 
the President's leadership, this conference report provides $2.8 
billion more for education funding than the House-passed bill, and 
provides full or close to full funding for the President's National 
Service Program, the Goals 2000 educational initiatives, and title I 
funding for disadvantaged children in local school districts. In spite 
of the attempts by bean-counting Republicans, the Drug-Free School 
Program and Head Start will be funded at fiscal year 1995 levels.
  I am disturbed, however, by the cuts in student financial assistance. 
The conference report provides $6.26 billion for student financial aid, 
which is a cut of $1.36 billion from fiscal year 1995. For Pell Grants, 
the conference report provides $4.9 billion, which is $1.26 billion 
less than fiscal year 1995. Obviously my Republican colleagues have 
forgotten what it costs to send children to college. The cost of 
college tuition are rising higher than ever before, and the number of 
people requesting aide are higher too. Just when the future leaders, 
scientists and artists of the next generation, this country's very 
future, need our help more than ever, my Republican colleagues want to 
deny them that assistance.


                             legal services

  This conference report would provide $278 million for legal services, 
which is a $122 million reduction from fiscal year 1995. The Legal 
Services Corporation provides an invaluable service to the indigent in 
this country, and I am concerned that this cut will compromise the 
ability of the poor to obtain good decent legal counsel. The sixth 
amendment of the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to 
legal counsel, but by brutally cutting the LCS budget, we are 
effectively denying this constitutional right to those who are served 
by it. In addition, this conference report contains the same 
prohibition as in the December conference report, prohibiting the use 
of funds, either public or private, for attorneys to participate in 
abortion litigation, redistricting, welfare reform, union organizing 
and strikes, and any class action suits.


                                title x

  I am pleased that the this conference report provides the title X 
family Planning Program with the same level of funding as fiscal year 
1995. The title X Family Planning Program provides a valuable service 
for low-income clients by offering funding for contraceptive health 
services, pregnancy prevention, abstinence, and STD screening. 
Prevention costs a lot less than cure, and the money spent on this 
program saves this country not only money, but the social capital of 
our youth and low-income citizens as well.


                      hiv servicemember discharge

  I am very pleased that the conference report overturns the recently 
enacted law that requires the discharge or retirement of military 
personnel who test positive for the HIV virus.
  This unnecessary measure was neither sought nor supported by the 
Department of Defense. Both the Assistant Secretary for Force 
Management Policy and the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel 
have stated that the provision would do nothing to improve military 
readiness while depriving the Armed Forces of experienced individuals 
who are ready and able to perform their assigned duties. I am thankful 
that the conferees had the wisdom to overturn this unwise and unjust 
provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this package, not because I 
believe it to be the very best that we could do for our Nation, but 
because it is the best that the 104th Congress could accomplish. In a 
recent interview of Lester Thurow, the well renowned economist at MIT, 
he ably points out the folly of what this Congress has been doing. He 
argues that the biggest threat to the long-term economic health of this 
Nation is not Japan nor is it regulation, but rather the lack of 
investment we are making in the basic elements of this Nation's social 
system: infrastructure, education, R&D, and most importantly--people. 
It is these things which will secure the future of our Nation's 
economic and global status. We Democrats understand this and so does 
the President. I can only hope that Republican Members eventually do 
to.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 3019, omnibus appropriations for fiscal year 1996. I am 
pleased that the conference report includes over $1.2 billion in 
emergency disaster relief funding. These funds will go a long way 
toward helping communities in my region recover from the devastating 
flooding earlier this year.
  In February, when the serious flooding began in Oregon, I returned 
from Washington, DC, to tour the flooded areas with the National Guard. 
It was my goal to do everything in my power to assist people in need 
and I am very proud of my staff's efforts to help the thousands of 
Oregonians who were suffering.
  The first few days of the flooding were a flurry of activity. I 
contacted each house in my congressional district with vital 
information on where to get help, secured a Federal disaster 
declaration for each county, held special briefings for local officials 
on where to obtain emergency assistance, and established a mobile 
operations center. My office worked emergency extended hours to ensure 
that people got the help they needed, when they needed it. I toured the 
flooded areas a second time--this time accompanied by James Lee Witt, 
the Director of FEMA, and Rodney Slater, the Federal Highway 
Administration Director--and personally urged them to get assistance to 
Oregon as quickly as possible.
  In the aftermath of the flooding, I held emergency mobile offices in 
13 cities to reach out

[[Page H4098]]

and help Oregonians in need. I conducted four formal town meetings and 
toured the flooded areas for a third time. It was so heartening to see 
Oregonians joining together, neighbor to neighbor, to deal with the 
flooding. Today, my office remains intimately involved in damage 
assessment and recovery efforts at the local level.
  Earlier this year, I was one of the two Democrats in the House to 
support a bill which included nearly $1 billion in disaster relief 
funding primarily for Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Getting aid to 
my district is of paramount importance, and I originally supported this 
bill despite my serious reservations with other provisions unrelated to 
disaster assistance. My main goal was to help people recover as soon as 
possible from the devastation caused by the floods.
  I am pleased that the final bill before the House includes over $1.2 
billion in disaster assistance. These funds will go a long way toward 
helping restore our communities in Oregon. I would like to highlight a 
few programs which will benefit my constituents:
  Over $100 million for watershed, flood control, and emergency 
conservation efforts; $300 million for highways and roads; $165 million 
for dikes and other Army Corps of Engineer projects; $150 million in 
FEMA disaster assistance programs; and $100 million in SBA assistance, 
as well as CDBG funds to help communities meet their local match 
requirements for FEMA programs.
  Even with these funds, many communities still have a long way to go 
before people are back on their feet. I will continue to work closely 
with citizen groups and local officials to help Oregon recover from its 
worst flood in 30 years. I appreciate the hard work of the entire 
Oregon delegation in making this disaster relief package a reality, and 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report on H.R. 
3019 today.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the omnibus appropriations for fiscal year 
1996 (H.R. 3019) represents a partial victory for common sense and the 
Democratic Party. We have forced the Republican Majority to cancel 
devastating cuts in programs such as Title I; Head Start; Drug-Free and 
Safe Schools; the Summer Youth Jobs Program and the School-To-Work 
Program. The children of America have won a temporary victory and vital 
funding will now flow smoothly.
  We applaud this incomplete but positive step forward; however, the 
fact that the Appropriations Committee has usurped the power of the 
authorizing Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee and 
promulgated reactionary setbacks for educational reform must be 
exposed. If the closed door, secretive actions of the Appropriations 
Committee are not curbed we will soon be confronted with a situation 
where all authorizing committees are rendered irrelevant and obsolete.
  The scenario which began with the irresponsible campaign to abolish 
the Department of Education has now reached a backdoor climax through 
the appropriations process. By gutting the authorizing education reform 
legislation passed in the 103d Congress, the powerful Appropriations 
Committee has removed the reason for the continued existence of the 
DOE.
  The results of all existing public opinion polls indicate that an 
explosion of public indignation is likely to greet this monstrous 
result of Republican blackmail at the negotiating table. Voters have 
consistently ranked education as one of the top three priorities for 
public funding.
  The following is a summary of the scarred and mangled education 
reform program left after the illegal actions of the Appropriations 
Committee:
  The conference agreement amends the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. 
Specifically, the agreement includes language: Which permits school 
districts, in States that elect not to participate in the Goals 2000 
program, to apply directly to the Secretary of Education for Goals 2000 
funding, if the State education agency approves; eliminates the 
requirement that States submit their improvement plans to the Secretary 
of Education for approval; deletes the requirement for the composition 
of State and local panels that develop State and local improvement 
plans; eliminates the National Education Standards and Improvement 
Council; removes the requirement for States to develop opportunity-to-
learn standards; and clarifies that no State, local education agency, 
or school shall be required, as a condition of receiving assistance 
under the title to provide outcomes-based education, or school-based 
health clinics.
  A special and particular target of this arrogant usurpation of the 
powers of the authorizing Education Committee was the requirement for 
States to develop opportunity-to-learn standards. Like all standards 
this was a voluntary one and merely called for the inclusion of a 
discussion of the steps being taken to provide adequate resources for 
learning to the students being required to take tests that are compared 
from State to State.
  This stealth assassination of the concept means that the months of 
debate that took place during the authorizing process will be thrown 
into the garbage and at the Federal level there will be no discussions 
of the obligations of States to provide safe buildings, up-to-date 
library books, science labs and qualified teachers. Black children will 
be tested and tested and tested until they are driven from the 
education process. But no one will be held accountable for not 
providing adequate resources.
  The group with the least knowledge and wisdom about educational 
reform has assumed the greatest amount of decisionmaking power and 
prevailed in removing any chance at the establishment of accountability 
through visibility.
  For the moment the neanderthals have triumphed; however, when pearls 
are thrown into a pig pen and the boars gang up to urinate on the 
pearls, the value of the pearls is in no way diminished. The power of 
the idea of opportunity-to-learn standards will one day soon be 
resurrected.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation. Earlier this year, the Pacific Northwest experienced a 
flood event of devastating proportions. The resources provided in this 
bill for disaster relief will go a long way toward rebuilding the 
infrastructure in southwest Washington.
  For instance, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest took a brutal 
beating by the flood. Roads, bridges and trails were obliterated by the 
flood waters, causing an estimated $13 million in damage. Many of these 
roads are key links to Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, an 
important tourist attraction in my district. Tourism related businesses 
in places like Randle and Cougar rely on the roads for their 
livelihood. The assistance in this bill will go a long way toward 
reopening access in the Gifford Pinchot.
  In addition, the funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service will help 
repair our wildlife refuges that provide habitat for endangered species 
like the Columbia whitetailed deer in Wahkiakum County.
  The Corps of Engineers also are provided significant funds to repair 
important dikes and levees. I am hopeful that some of these funds can 
be used for the design, dredging and monitoring of the relief channel 
at Willapa Harbor. This is an extremely important project for the 
people in Pacific County because it controls the erosion problem and 
restores navigation at Willapa Harbor.
  With respect to the offsets in this bill, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency has assured me that they have the necessary resources 
to take care of the human needs in the Pacific Northwest.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Livingston. He 
has done the best job he can in negotiations with the Senate and the 
White House.
  There is no question that this bill constitutes progress in the 
battle to reduce the deficit. With this and the other appropriations 
bills, budget authority is $23 billion below last year's level. This is 
an improvement over normal congressional spending patterns.
  I will vote for this bill, but I want to make very clear my view that 
we should move faster in downsizing the Government. I regard this only 
as a down payment.
  With Coloradan and other families struggling under an average tax 
burden of 38 percent of income, it is clear to me that there is still a 
great deal of work to be done.
  Last year when we began balancing the budget, I wanted to do it in 5 
years. I also wanted to give the families of Colorado tax relief, and 
shift money and power out of Washington and back to States and local 
communities.
  We were told that this could not be done. We were told we must 
compromise with the Senate and with the President. So we agreed to a 7 
year plan, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton.
  President Clinton wanted a budget that would never balance. All he 
was willing to put on the table was a plan that pretends to balance, 
but puts all the cuts off until after the turn of the century when they 
will never happen.
  We got no tax relief for families. Tax Freedom Day remains May 7, the 
latest day ever. The typical American family now pays more in total 
taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. I realize 
the Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over only the 
discretionary portions of this bill, but the fact remains that it 
spends entitlement funds. In fact, in the health portion of this bill, 
over 75 percent is for mandatory entitlement programs, including 
Medicare and Medicaid. This House wants to reform these programs. 
President Clinton has vetoed reform.
  Medicare is in trouble. Last year the Clinton administration 
projected that Medicare would go broke in 2002; we now know it will be 
much sooner, before the year 2000. What

[[Page H4099]]

have we done? Nothing. Once again, the tough choices are put off to the 
future.
  It is true that the deficit is coming down. But it could and should 
be coming down much faster. Let us not forget, each of these deficits 
is added on top of a $5 trillion national debt that keeps getting 
bigger. We should be reforming entitlements, and we should be cutting 
more in 1996.

  Much of the deficit reduction that is occurring is due to lower 
interest rates and lower inflation. In fact, the CBO now tells us that 
we will save $288 billion over the next 7 years in lower interest 
payments on items such as the debt and CPI adjustments to entitlements.
  We should be using this fiscal dividend to get to balance much sooner 
and put an end to deficits for good. Instead we are spending much of 
it. This is a testament to the tremendous spending bias of Washington, 
DC.
  It is time to dramatically downsize this Government. We need to send 
the money back home to States, communities, and families. While this 
bill is a downpayment, I am not ready to declare victory. There is much 
work to be done.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to briefly address a particular 
provision contained in H.R. 3019 which I believe should be implemented 
with careful attention by the Department of Education.
  The provision renders institutions of higher education ineligible for 
the Pell Grant Program if they have been eliminated from the student 
loan programs due to high default rates. Default rate calculations have 
been the subject of much debate and I anticipate that the debate will 
continue during the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 
As we all know, the Department of Education has had problems 
calculating these rates accurately in the past and I would not want to 
see an institution and its students harmed due to an incorrect 
calculation. I also believe that the Department of Education, by 
working in consultation with institutions, should implement the 
exception categories included in the provision in an expeditious and 
cost effective manner. Institutions should not be forced to spend huge 
sums to prove that they, in fact, qualify under the exception 
categories in the provision. A careful and thoughtful implementation 
process on the part of the Department of Education will help avoid many 
of the problems encountered in the past.
  Again, we will be closely reviewing these types of important issues 
as we begin the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today we have before the House an agreement 
on the remaining spending bills for fiscal year 1996. This bill 
reflects significant movement in the right direction. I was pleased to 
work for many of the President's priorities as a member of the 
conference committee.
  Last year, the Republican Leadership made a conscious decision to 
hold priority programs for education, job training, and environmental 
protection hostage to their demands for tax cuts for the wealthy and 
deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The Gingrich agenda has thrown the 
congressional budget process into chaos.
  This conference agreement is a great improvement over the extreme 
House bill. Yet, the priorities in spending for fiscal year 1996 are 
difficult to justify. At the same time the majority is providing $7 
billion more than requested by the Pentagon for defense programs, they 
are cutting deeply into priority programs which invest in our Nation's 
future.
  Let me comment specifically on the conference agreement on the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill. This bill provides for some of the 
highest priority investments for our future--the health and education 
of the American people. The bill provides $64.5 billion in 
discretionary spending, a decrease of $2.6 billion from comparable 1995 
spending and $7.5 billion less than the President's request.
  It is difficult not to comment on the judgement of moving $7 billion 
from priority education, job training, and health programs to new and 
unrequested defense spending. I clearly have a different view on how we 
should measure the strength of America.
  Nonetheless, The President must be commended for standing strong and 
insisting that the egregious cuts in the House bill be overturned to 
restore much needed funding for education, job training, and 
environmental protection. President Clinton's leadership on these 
priority domestic programs has made a real difference.
  The 17 percent cut to compensatory education has been reversed. The 
57 percent cut to Safe and Drug Free Schools has been reversed. The 
elimination of Goals 2000 has been reversed. The elimination of the 
summer youth employment program has been reversed. Job training has 
been restored for more than 100,000 displaced American workers. Worker 
protections have been restored. Funding for the Ryan White CARE program 
has been increased. And, of the 17 riders to which the administration 
strongly objected 14 have been dropped and 3 have been modified.
  The majority of anti-environment riders to the bill have been removed 
or the President has been given waiver authority to stop their 
implementation. We should never again try to use the budget process as 
the engine for bad environmental policy that does not have the fuel to 
pass Congress standing alone.
  In addition, the bill restores the community policing program to fund 
100,000 new police. And, the bill overturns the recently enacted 
requirement that HIV-infected service members be discharged. These 
changes are a great step forward.
  While this bill is a great improvement over the House-passed bill, it 
does contain two unjustified provisions to assist New Hampshire and 
Louisiana with their Medicaid programs. At the same time, very well 
justified provisions to assist California public hospitals were not 
considered. My hope is that the situation in California can be 
addressed in other legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the House leadership to commit 
itself to bipartisan solutions and an orderly budget process for 1997 
so that we never again put the American people through the uncertainty 
reflected in passing the 1996 spending bills.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. However, I 
am disappointed that we were not able to reach a compromise on capping 
the direct lending program.
  The Clinton administration has been right on the mark for its 
continued advocacy on behalf of students and their families with 
respect to education funding. As I, and 25 other Democrats wrote to the 
President in a letter last week, our focus has rightfully been on title 
I, Head Start, and raising the level of student aid.
  However, the preoccupation with the new Federal direct student loan 
program is dramatically misplaced because direct lending does not 
increase the level of student aid or the quality of education. Direct 
lending is simply one administrative mechanism for delivering that aid.
  It is unfortunate that we couldn't come up with a 40 percent 
compromise cap on direct lending to allow for a fair test of this new 
government-run program with the proven guaranteed student loan program.
  I want to acknowledge the careful deliberation direct lending has 
received in this Congress and the strong Democratic opposition that has 
always followed direct lending. In fact, direct lending was pushed 
through Congress without a committee hearing in the House in 1993 and 
despite the misgivings of a bipartisan majority of the body. I am 
confident that the current direct loan program implementation plan 
could not survive a stand-alone vote in this Congress or the last 
Congress.
  We have learned a lot over the last year.
  The independent and nonpartisan Advisory Committee on Student 
Financial Assistance has cited the fact that the Department has risked 
the integrity of the direct loan program by allowing schools with high 
defaults and questionable records into the program.
  We have confirmed that direct lending will add $350 billion in 
unnecessary borrowing added to the national debt.
  And we know that there are no plans for the direct loan program to 
include the kind of risk-sharing on defaults included in the guaranteed 
student loan program that helps protect taxpayers.
  Finally, we know--not only from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] 
but also from the Congressional Research Service [CRS]--that in an 
apples-to-apples comparison, the direct loan program does not save tax 
dollars. Period.
  A cap on direct lending to do a fair test with the schools currently 
in the program is more than fair--and is still the right thing to do.
  A 40 percent cap test period would give the Department of Education 
time to focus on other management problems, such as the recent backlog 
in processing the basic financial aid form. I have no doubt that 
hundreds of individuals at the Department are working hard to solve 
these problems, but the fact is they have a lot of work to do. This is 
not the time to give them more responsibility.
  The best student loan program for the next generation of America's 
students should include flexible repayment plans that make sense, 
incentives and risks for loan administrators who must make the program 
accountable to taxpayers, and improved safeguards in program integrity. 
The 40 percent compromise on direct lending would have given both loan 
programs a chance to deliver on these objectives.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I should also say that I share 
some of the frustration of my colleagues. This legislation is the 
result of a compromise. As with every compromise, there are things in 
the bill I would have preferred not to have. The bill also omits some 
provisions I would have liked to see included. On balance, however, 
Chairman Livingston and our leadership have brought

[[Page H4100]]

back a victory for the pro-life majority in the House, and a victory 
for the protection of unborn children.
  Our most significant victory is that the conference report does not 
include the Hatfield language, which was included in the Senate bill 
and would have effectively written a blank check to the international 
abortion industry.
  Last year the House voted several times to condition U.S. funding for 
population control activities on the Mexico City policy--a prohibition 
of funding for foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion. 
The House also voted to condition its support for the United Nations 
Population Fund [UNFPA] on an end to UNFPA support to the forced 
abortion policy of the People's Republic of China.
  The House provisions recognized that money is fungible. The fiction 
advanced by the other side--that international population control 
agencies can use bookkeeping devices to spend their money on abortions, 
and our money on everything else--ignores this reality. United States 
taxpayers do not want their money going to organizations which support 
the PRC program that includes forced abortion which themselves perform 
abortions, or which seek to export abortions to countries that 
currently protect their unborn children. If population-control 
organizations insist that they want population money only for family 
planning activities unrelated to abortion, they could do so under the 
House provisions by getting out of the abortion business.
  The Mexico City policy did not and would not lessen the overall U.S. 
contribution to international family planning. Almost all of the 
organizations which had received funding agreed to the terms of the 
policy and continued to receive funding. But the Mexico City policy has 
prevented these U.S. dollars from being used to enrich the 
international abortion lobby or to support its self-serving efforts to 
legalize abortion as a method of birth control.
  Unfortunately, pro-abortion organizations would not let the foreign 
aid appropriations bill go forward unless they can get U.S. dollars and 
continue to pressure other nations to sanction abortion on demand--
pressure which would appear to be endorsed by the United States because 
these groups receive substantial U.S. financial support.
  For this reason, the House and Senate reached an impasse in 
negotiations, even though the House made several concessions in its 
pro-life language.
  The issue was finally resolved by compromising not on abortion policy 
itself, but on the level of funding and the timing of expenditures. We 
dropped the Mexico City language in favor of a 35 percent cut in funds 
for international population control, and a provision that only one-
fifteenth of the funding could be obligated in each of the 15 months 
for which fiscal year 96 funds will be available.
  These provisions were designed to give both sides time--and an 
incentive--to negotiate further on the abortion issue. But the largest 
recipients of grants for population programs, and some of their 
supporters in Congress, instead chose to make wild and unsubstantiated 
charges against the compromise. Pro-abortion organizations were even 
accusing pro-life Members of Congress of causing more abortions. They 
had a simple formula: less money for abortion providers means more 
abortions, and more money for abortion providers means fewer abortions. 
Mr. Speaker, the conferees have recognized this assertion for the 
nonsense that it is, and they have omitted the pro-abortion Senate 
language.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. spending for population control has gone up 
dramatically in the last 3 years--from $325 million in fiscal year 1992 
to about $550 million in fiscal year 1995--even in a time when money 
has been generally tight and many Federal expenditures have stayed 
level or declined. Even aside from concerns about the abortion issue, 
the Clinton administration has been giving disproportionate emphasis to 
population control as a solution to all problems. Our first foreign aid 
priorities should be programs that save the lives of children, protect 
refugees who are fleeing persecution, and create free and self-
sustaining economic systems for people in emerging nations. The logic 
of disproportionate spending on population control seems to be that 
people will not need help if they are not around. Not only is this 
policy morally questionable, but it will not work.
  The reduced funding level for population programs in fiscal year 1996 
under the recent compromise will be about $356 million. This is 
substantially more than the United States spent on all population 
control programs in fiscal year 1992, or in any other year prior to the 
dramatic increases of the Clinton era.
  Finally, and most important, the population-control lobby can 
eliminate the statutory ceiling imposed by the compromise--simply by 
agreeing to reasonable restrictions on international abortion-related 
spending. All we want is to re-erect a wall of separation between 
abortion and family planning.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to call attention to another important 
provision of the conference report: the Coates-Snowe-DeLay amendment, 
which is necessary to preserve the accreditation of medical schools 
that do not require their students to actively perform abortions. At 
the urging of the pro-abortion movement the ACGME imposed a rule that 
would have frozen out of the profession those students who would not do 
abortions. This provision will effectively reverse that coercive, anti-
life, power play by the abortion industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to see even more pro-life provisions 
in the conference report. There are also other important omissions. Mr. 
Gilman submitted a list of 18 noncontroversial provision from H.R. 
1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. These important 
provisions included the MacBride principles for justice in Northern 
Ireland, the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, the restoration of asylum 
eligibility for forced abortion victims, and the extension of the 
Lautenberg amendment which has saved so many Jews and evangelical 
Christians in the former Soviet Union from persecution. Unfortunately, 
President Clinton saw fit to veto the bill that contained these 
important human rights provisions. I believe they should have been 
included in this conference report, especially because the report 
includes a waiver of the statutory requirement that there be an 
authorization for the State Department during fiscal year 1996.
  But I know the going was tough--the majority of the Senate conferees 
and the White House were both against us, especially on the pro-life 
issues--and I congratulate Chairman Livingston and the leadership on 
their firm stand in favor of human life. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I spoke this afternoon about the need to put 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation issues behind us. With today's momentous 
vote on H.R. 3019 we have accomplished this. I wanted to speak a little 
more about an amendment I authored during markup of the Interior 
appropriations bill, and which is included in section 335 of the 
Interior Department portion of H.R. 3019.
  The Kolbe amendment on Mount Graham is quite simple. It states that 
alternative site 2, which was issued by the Forest Service, is 
authorized and approved, and that the site--alternate 2--shall be 
deemed to be consistent with and permissible under the terms of the 
Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 (AICA), Public Law 100-696. What 
does this mean? The Kolbe amendment reaffirms what many people 
believed; that the alternative site chosen by the Forest Service for 
the location of the large binocular telescope [LBT] is in compliance 
with the authorizing language.
  Why was this language necessary? To clarify, once and for all, that 
the alternative site for the large binocular telescope falls within the 
parameters established by Congress for the location of the Mount Graham 
telescopes. In fact, during the entire period in which the Forest 
Service defended itself against the lawsuits filed by various 
environmental groups, U.S. Attorney Janet A. Napolitano argued in both 
U.S. District Court and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that 
``* * * [the site] satisfies the statutory requirement that the three 
telescopes comprising the Observatory, including the LBT, not exceed 24 
acres within the marked boundary.'' ``The site'' she argued, ``also 
conforms to the requirements of Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 3 * 
* *.'' U.S. Attorney Napolitano concluded her argument by stating what 
many of us already knew and understood, ``the Approved site [alt 2] is 
the best site for the long-term survival of the red squirrel.''
  The U.S. attorney is not only one who has taken the position which 
the Kolbe amendment clarifies. Ninth Circuit Court Judge Hall in her 
dissenting opinion stated:

       I think that the AICA confers discretion on the Forest 
     Service to site the telescopes as it sees fit, so long as 
     those locations are within the 24-acre ``Site'' described in 
     section 601(b) of the AICA, and because I believe we are 
     bound to defer to the Forest Service's own reasonable 
     interpretation of the AICA * * *.

  Judge Hall's final comment was:

       I find the further delay imposed by today's decision 
     especially regrettable in light of the fact that the FS 
     appears to have chosen to locate the LBT on Peak 10,477 in 
     good faith and for laudable reasons: Peak 10,477, according 
     to the FWS is now the location that would cause the least 
     disruption to the squirrel's habitat.

  I couldn't agree more.
  I hope the adoption of the Kolbe amendment closes this unfortunate 
chapter of the Mount Graham Observatory. Alternative site 2 is in 
compliance with the AICA, and I look forward to the resumption of 
construction of the LBT. The discoveries that lie in the heavens await 
us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.


                           motion to recommit

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

[[Page H4101]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
conference report?
  Mr. YATES. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. YATES moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 3019) to the 
     committee of conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 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 motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 399, 
nays 25, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               YEAS--399

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--25

     Bonilla
     Chabot
     DeFazio
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Funderburk
     Graham
     Hancock
     Hilliard
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Largent
     Norwood
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Thornberry
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baesler
     de la Garza
     Ewing
     Jacobs
     Peterson (MN)
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Rose
     Schroeder
     Wilson

                              {time}  1653

  Mr. HUNTER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TATE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________