Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)

[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.

____________________