[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H12051-H12110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3610, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1997

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3610) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].


                             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 and include extraneous material on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3610 and that I may include tabular and extraneous 
material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to bring before the House the Omnibus 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that will fund the remaining 
appropriations bills for the full fiscal year and allow us to go home.
  I want to say up front that the procedure that we were forced to 
follow was less than desirable. That procedure was initially caused by 
the other body's inability to complete consideration of five 
appropriation bills. We also had to address the demands of the Clinton 
administration to increase domestic spending.
  But the House was able to get its work done. We passed all of our 
bills promptly this summer, all 13 appropriations bills. That would not 
have been the case without the dedicated, steadfast, and conscientious 
effort of all of the Members of the House, but most especially my 
friend the gentleman from Wisconsin, David Obey, the ranking minority 
member of the committee, as well as all of the subcommittee chairmen; 
all of the ranking members of subcommittees; all of the members of the 
Committee on Appropriations; and especially, the dedicated staff, 
majority and minority; the gentleman who sits next to me, the chief 
clerk of the Committee on Appropriations, Jim Dyer; the gentleman that 
sits next to him, Dennis Kedzior; Fred Mohrman, who is not here tonight 
but who helped get us started in the 104th Congress; Scott Lilly, the 
ranking minority clerk over there sitting next to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; and all of the other dedicated staff, many of 
whom have not even slept a single minute over the last 3 or 4 days to 
prepare this bill.
  They have done just an incredible job against overwhelming odds, 
bearing a tremendous work load, and I can tell them all that I am 
deeply appreciative of their efforts. Because of them we were able to 
get our work done.
  Now the procedure we used to develop this conference report is 
brought about because some of the bills got stymied on the other side. 
But in order to come to closure on these matters as well as to address 
the needs for increased funding for antiterrorism programs, the drug 
initiative, disaster assistance for Hurricane Fran, wildfires in the 
West, and to consider the demands of the administration for funding 
certain programs, we had to combine all of these remaining bills into 
one legislative agenda, one legislative package, which sits before you 
so the trade-offs could be made and the package could be viewed as a 
balanced one.

  As many of the Members know, the administration asked for additional 
domestic spending that would be offset by cuts in the defense 
appropriations bill. That was unacceptable to me, and it was 
unacceptable to the gentleman from Florida, Bill Young, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on National Security.
  We both insisted that no further cuts be made to the level of funding 
in the defense bill and that other offsets must be found to pay for 
their wish list of domestic spending. We refused to cut defense 
further.
  Mr. Young put together a good defense appropriations bill that 
provides for a strong national defense and meets the needs of American 
servicemen, and women whether they be in Bosnia or flying over Iraq or 
Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or elsewhere all around the globe.
  In a minute I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young], so he can explain the portion of the bill that relates to 
the national defense. But in the meantime, I want to say that this 
appropriation measure carries full-time funding for 6 complete bills, 
virtually half of the budget of the United States Government. It 
includes the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary; 
the Department of Defense, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs; the Subcommittee on the 
Interior; the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education; and the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and 
General Government.
  In addition to augmenting various programs in these annual spending 
bills, we are providing funding for the antiterrorism program of some 
$981 million, we are giving $8.8 billion for a drug initiative to 
combat drug abuse and to interdict the inflow of drugs into this 
country, and we are providing nearly $400 million for relief from 
disasters such as Hurricane Fran.
  The sizable offsets included in the bill, for example, from the BIF/
SAIF program that we will hear about the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach] and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and the 
spectrum sale both fully fund the deficit impact in any spending in 
this bill.
  I want to reiterate, this bill does not add to the deficit. In fact, 
this bill completes our final step in the 104th Congress toward 
securing some $53 billion in cumulative savings under the

[[Page H12052]]

previous Congress for the American taxpayer. Had the President gotten 
his wishes abided in his budget, frankly, we would have spent $75 
billion more than we actually did.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the funding levels in this bill represent a 
good compromise. They have been working out in strict bipartisan 
fashion. My hat is off to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 
all of the Democrats and Republicans who sat with us in long, tedious 
hours over the last few weeks and with Mr. Panetta and all his staff 
over at the White House. They put in incredible hours with us.
  Not many of us got any sleep at all, but we finally pounded out is, I 
think that a bipartisan package can be achieved if people of good will 
work together with one another. That is what happened here.
  I believe we have a bill that is good for the departments and the 
agencies funded by these six subcommittees. It is good for the taxpayer 
because it is deficit neutral, and it is a good bill because it allows 
us to go home to our constituents.
  In a few minutes I will be happy to yield to the subcommittee 
chairmen who helped to craft this package.
  At this point in the Record I would like to insert several detailed 
tables showing the funding levels for the departments and agencies in 
this conference report.

[[Page H12053]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.066



[[Page H12054]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.067



[[Page H12055]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.068



[[Page H12056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.069



[[Page H12057]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.070



[[Page H12058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.071



[[Page H12059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.072



[[Page H12060]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.073



[[Page H12061]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.074



[[Page H12062]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.075



[[Page H12063]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.076



[[Page H12064]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.077



[[Page H12065]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.078



[[Page H12066]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.079



[[Page H12067]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.080



[[Page H12068]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.081



[[Page H12069]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.082



[[Page H12070]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.083



[[Page H12071]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.084



[[Page H12072]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.085



[[Page H12073]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.086



[[Page H12074]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.087



[[Page H12075]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.088



[[Page H12076]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.089



[[Page H12077]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.090



[[Page H12078]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.091



[[Page H12079]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.092



[[Page H12080]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.093



[[Page H12081]]

  Mr. Speaker, when the conference report on H.R. 3666, an act making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development and independent agencies for fiscal year 1997 was 
approved by this body late last week, the spending tables accompanying 
this measure were inadvertently not included in the Record. I now would 
like to include them at this place in the Record.

[[Page H12082]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.094



[[Page H12083]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.095



[[Page H12084]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.096



[[Page H12085]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.097



[[Page H12086]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.098



[[Page H12087]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.099



[[Page H12088]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful for us to take just a few moments 
to analyze just how different this appropriation bill is from a number 
of appropriation bills which this House was considering just about a 
year ago.
  A year ago, the majority tried to force the Clinton administration to 
sign a budget that set us on the path to cutting real levels of support 
for education by 30 percent, by cutting real levels of support for 
training by 40 percent, by cutting real levels of support for the 
environment by 30 percent.
  This year, that will not happen. This year, the Government is not 
shutting down, and this year we are not seeing in the bill before us 
today those kinds of deep reductions in the investments that are 
necessary to make this country grow.
  Last year, the Government was shut down on purpose in order to force 
the President to sign a bill which made very deep reductions in these 
investments. This year, we came within 3 days of seeing the Government 
shut down by accident. Thank God, it did not happen. I think a lot of 
people are due credit for that.
  First of all, I would like to point out why we are here in this 
position tonight. Four months ago the House passed appropriations bills 
which asked the President to spend $11 billion more than he wanted to 
spend in the area of military spending. They put us on the road to a 5-
year real reduction in support for education of 20 percent. They put us 
on the road to similar reductions in support for training, for Cops on 
the Beat, and other critical areas.
  This committee did its job in passing all 13 appropriation bills, but 
half of the appropriation bills never finished their passage through 
the Congress, as the chairman has indicated.
  In addition, there are a huge number of other authorizations which 
did not make it through the Congress. This bill must pass tonight 
because all of those others didn't.
  I support the bill because it is the only way that we can keep our 
obligation to keep Government open and to make some of the investments 
necessary to help our people. I also support it because it does restore 
some of the reductions in those investments that are so important to 
our children and our workers.
  For instance, Head Start will now add children rather than dumping 
them off the rolls, as this Congress was asked to do just a year ago.
  Title I, the most important education program we have to help young 
children learn how to read, to deal with math, to deal with science, 
title I will be helping an additional 400,000 children, rather than 
dumping almost 1 million of them off the rolls as we were asked to do 
just about a year ago.
  School-to-Work under this bill is strengthened rather than being 
eliminated, as this Congress tried to do just a few short months ago.
  Safe and Drug-Free Schools is also strengthened under this bill in 
comparison to the very deep reductions that this Congress was asked to 
make just a few months ago.
  Pell grants, the major grant to enable the children of working 
families to go to college: there will be 150,000 more working-class 
students who will get help under Pell grants.
  There will be over 700,000 young people who will receive Perkins loan 
help, rather than zeroing out the program.
  Job training is 6 percent stronger than the original House bill this 
year alone, not to mention the deep reductions that were made in it a 
year ago.
  The Older Americans Act: we will be providing adjustments in the 
minimum wage for 74,000 seniors who work part time at minimum wage 
salaries trying to do public service work and staying off the welfare 
rolls at the same time.
  The attack that we saw in this House earlier this year on the 
enforcement of labor laws which protect workers from abuse at the 
bargaining table is turned back in this bill. There will be no 
crippling of the National Labor Relations Board. There will be no 
handcuffs placed on government efforts to strengthen health and safety 
protections for workers in the workplace. And thanks to the insistence 
of the Clinton administration, working people and kids are going to be 
put at the top of our priority list again, rather than near the bottom, 
as we feel they were a year ago.
  These restorations are paid for and will not add to the deficit, the 
taxpayers will be happy to hear.
  But this bill also contains a string of other authorizing 
legislation. In fact, there are some 31 separate major authorization 
provisions being attached.
  I have been asked by many Members of the House, ``Dave, can you 
guarantee that there is not some provision in here which we will regret 
when we hear about it in the weeks to come?''
  My answer is simply to invite you to take a look at the stack on that 
table, or on the table in front of the gentlewoman from Ohio. That bill 
is not measured in pages, it is measured in feet. It is about a foot 
and a half long. I do not know how much it weighs, but you could get a 
double hernia lifting it.
  I would simply say that I think I know most of the legislative 
decisions that were made by the Committee on Appropriations, but I 
certainly cannot verify that there are not some provisions in these 
other portions of the bill which we will wish we had not seen because 
they were managed by many other committees, there were not managed by 
the Committee on Appropriations. This is simply the vehicle by which 
all of that other legislation is getting done.
  You have an immense amount of legislation that has never been 
considered by either body, and, as a result, I think that in many ways, 
unfortunately, this legislation is a case study in institutional 
failure because of the massive amount of somebody else's unfinished 
business that had to be attached to the appropriations legislation.

  As a result, we have had a huge number of Members, the vast majority 
of the people's Representatives, who have been cut out of the process, 
and I think that that is a terrible abuse of the legislative process. 
It has also meant, frankly, that the administration has played a much 
heavier role in the direct drafting of legislation than I am, frankly, 
comfortable with. But I think that was made necessary by the lack of 
ability of the Congress as a bicameral institution to pass all of the 
legislation that it was required to pass without that kind of 
involvement.
  Having said all of that, I simply want to say a few things about the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. The House Committee on 
Appropriations did do its job by finishing its appropriations bills on 
time, even if the Senate did not and even if the Congress, as an 
institution, did not.
  You may have noticed that Bob Livingston and I disagree often. You 
may have noticed that we have strong views, often in the opposite 
direction. We have different priorities, I think it is safe to say. But 
I would like to think that he and I have demonstrated a relationship 
that shows that people of the opposite political parties can have a 
relationship that demonstrates respect and even deep friendship, even 
while differing over very important and fundamental issues.
  I think our relationship demonstrates that opponents do not have to 
be enemies. I certainly regard the gentleman as being one of the 
strongest and closest friends I have on Capitol Hill.
  I would simply like to congratulate him for all of the work he has 
done. It has taken an immense amount of work to get to this point, 
including coordinating an awful lot of issues about which we knew 
absolutely nothing because that responsibility was thrust upon us.
  I would also like to thank every single member of the Committee on 
Appropriations staff, and especially on the Democratic side, Greg 
Dahlberg, Mark Murray, Nancy Madden, Bob Bonner, Cheryl Smith, Mark 
Mioduski, Scott Lilly, Tom Forhan, Pat Schlueter, and Del Davis. Many 
of them have, indeed, gone 2 and 3 days without sleep. Others perhaps 
have been able to catch an hour or two at the most. I think the 
American public would be profoundly impressed if they could see the 
dedication which all of them have brought to their jobs.

  I would also like to thank Leon Panetta, the President's Chief of 
Staff. Without his involvement we would be facing a government 
shutdown. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone who watched those meetings this week understands

[[Page H12089]]

that Mr. Panetta truly has a profound understanding of the way this 
Government does work and the way it is supposed to work, and without 
him we would never have been here with this legislation tonight.
  I would also like to especially thank Senator Mark Hatfield and 
Senator Robert Byrd, two truly fine gentlemen, two truly outstanding 
public servants. They helped us over many a rough spot, and without 
their help, we also would not be here tonight.
  So Mr. Speaker, at this point I would simply like to stop my remarks. 
I know we have several other Members who would like to make short 
comments on our side of the aisle. I would again like to thank everyone 
who cooperated.
  I am sorry we could not help a lot of Members on a lot of items they 
would have liked help on, but we felt we could not do it because we, 
frankly, did not have the time to examine each of those items and we 
did not want to embarrass this institution by accepting many items that 
we knew very little or nothing about. So I thank all of the Members of 
the House for their understanding.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his gracious comments and say 
that, frankly, I believe that we had an enormously successful 2 years 
on the Committee on Appropriations, and that would not have been 
possible without the close advice and consultation with Mr. Obey. He 
has indeed been a friend.
  We have been adversaries, but we have been adversaries in a friendly 
way. It has been a pleasure to deal with him. I appreciate his 
assistance and, likewise, the great assistance effort we got from the 
two gentlemen on the other side, Senator Byrd and Senator Hatfield.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the outstanding and vigorous gentleman from 
Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security who has 
been like my right arm, only he is on the left side of my office. His 
office is right next to mine, one-stop shopping for the Defense 
Department, my friend, Bill Young from Florida.

                              {time}  2100

  I want to also pay special tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha] who is the ranking member on our subcommittee.
  In our section of this bill today, we bring in a true bipartisan 
fashion, as we always have. This is an excellent bill as far as the 
national defense and intelligence appropriation is concerned. And when 
we came from conference, had it not been for the tremendous cooperation 
of our counterparts, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, we could not 
have come to the conclusion that we did nearly 3 weeks ago with a bill 
that was very close to the House-passed bill earlier on.
  This conference report is the product of the work of each and every 
subcommittee member who spent hours and days in hearings, on 
inspections in the field, and in the markup and conference sessions. On 
our side of the aisle, I'm particularly appreciative of the wise 
counsel of Joe McDade. Joe and I joined the subcommittee at the same 
time, 16 years ago and we have sat side by side through all of those 
years. Earlier, I thanked Bob Livingston for his great leadership of 
the full committee, and in spite of his very active schedule, he still 
finds time to devote a lot of energy toward our National Security 
efforts. Jerry Lewis and Joe Skeen each chair their own subcommittees, 
yet they still play a very active role on our subcommittee. Dave Hobson 
and Henry Bonilla have a very strong interest in our National Security 
and have been there every step of the way. Two new members to our 
effort are George Nethercutt and Ernest Istook. They may not have as 
much experience as others on the subcommittee but they each have played 
a very important role in our work.
  Earlier, I referred to the bipartisanship of our committee. Anyone 
who attends our hearings or observes the work of this subcommittee 
would have a hard time telling which party each of us belongs to, 
because we all have such a strong commitment to a strong National 
Defense. Jack Murtha has been a great partner, a wise counselor, and a 
true patriot in the work of this subcommittee. Norm Dicks is a 
knowledgeable and hard working member who plays a particularly 
important role in our Intelligence effort. Charlie Wilson is leaving 
the Congress, and we will miss his great contribution and his sense of 
humor which has more than once allowed us to get through a tough 
hearing or markup. Bill Hefner and Marty Sabo also play a very 
important role on our committee, and still find time to do so even with 
their other important responsibilities as ranking minority members on 
the Military Construction subcommittee and the Budget Committee.
  I also want to compliment the great work of our staff. They work 
hard, long hours, with many nights and weekends away from their 
families. They also have an expertise in their individual areas that is 
astounding. Kevin Roper, our clerk and staff director, combines a 
computer like brain with a day that starts and ends when most of the 
rest of this town is in bed. He is supported by a group of analysts 
who, as I said before, are not only very knowledgeable but have a 
particularly strong devotion themselves to a strong National Defense 
for our Nation. They are Doug Gregory, Tina Jonas, Alicia Jones, Paul 
Juola, Patricia Ryan, David Killian, Steve Nixon, Julie Pacquing, John 
Plashal, Greg Walters, and Stacy Trimble. I also want to thank Paige 
Schreiner for her work for the committee before she left to have a baby 
earlier this year and Katy Hagen who joined us just recently.
  This conference bill had to come down in numbers and we are basically 
a billion dollars under the House-passed bill. We were able to do that 
with a lot of heartburn and a lot of heartache. We had to eliminate 
programs that we did not want to eliminate, but it had to be done.
  But I want to report to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that two-thirds 
of the bill, as it relates to the national defense and intelligence 
section of this bill, two thirds of those dollars go for readiness, for 
training, for military personnel, pay raises, health issues, 
educational issues, matters of this type. The other third goes for 
research and development, procurement and other types of investment in 
our national security.
  We fully funded the 3 percent pay raise. We added $475 million to the 
health care budget shortfall in the President's budget. We added $600 
million over the budget for barracks and facilities repair for our 
people in uniform for a decent place to live. We added $138 million to 
continue the DOD breast cancer research and care programs. We fully 
funded all the readiness and training programs, and we added 
significant amounts for very key programs such as $353 million for the 
new counterterrorism programs, $165 million over the budget for 
Department of Defense drug interdiction operations. We provided $300 
million additional for the defense operations of the U.S. Coast Guard.
  This is a good bill. For those who might be wondering if they should 
vote for this overall package or not, but they believe in a strong 
national defense, the defense section of this bill is strong enough to 
overcome those apprehensions and overcome those fears. They should be 
able to vote for this bill based on the strength of the section dealing 
with national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record tabular material, as we 
normally do on a conference report.

[[Page H12090]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.100



[[Page H12091]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.101



[[Page H12092]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE96.102



[[Page H12093]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding me 
this time and I want to join with our colleagues in commending him for 
his leadership in helping to, once again I say in relationship to this 
bill, hammering out a compromise or a continuing resolution.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
the chairman of the full committee, for his leadership, his 
cooperation, and his patience.
  I wanted to mention one provision in the bill that I was particularly 
pleased survived the process and that is the addition of $100 million 
for the ADP program, the AIDS drug program, that provides some of the 
new therapies, the proteus inhibitors to people with HIV and AIDS.
  This $100 million is a very good investment because it will result in 
a savings to the taxpayer, but, more importantly, it will improve the 
quality of life and prolong life for people with HIV and AIDS. It will 
enable them to continue to work, to produce revenues for the Federal 
Government. So in speaking to it just on strictly fiscal terms, it is a 
good investment. It is a dynamic investment in that it will save money 
but, more importantly, as I say, it improves the quality of life.
  What will happen with the $100 million, I hope, is that half of it 
will be spent for the drugs themselves and the other half for the 
primary care necessary to provide the drugs to patients. Now that these 
proteus inhibitors are there, people have hope.
  Many more people are coming forward and being tested or seeking care 
because they know there is an answer. And those people need the primary 
care that goes with going on to a new protocol, a new drug program.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about wise spending. More importantly it is 
about giving hope. It is protecting the investment that the American 
taxpayers have made of billions of dollars into research for AIDS 
research. Now that we have found some encouraging therapies, it is 
important to make them available to everyone regardless of the ability 
to pay.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach] the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services and the author of the BIF-SAIF legislation that 
is part of this package.
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to report briefly on the banking title 
of the bill. This is a solid nonpartisan approach which balances 
consumer, taxpayer and industry concerns; less extensive than I would 
have like but, nonetheless, of historic dimensions.
  The provision will have lasting effects but, most importantly, 
failure to act would have led to serious disintermediation in the 
financial community, failure of the S&L insurance fund and new tax 
liability for S&L losses.
  This banking section, on the other hand, provides a basis for long-
term banking modernization based on the existence of the strongest 
financial industry fund in the Nation's history. Indeed, absent a 
calamity with passage of this legislation, America's insured financial 
institutions will reach an historic first, a prefunded insurance fund 
capable of regenerating itself ad infinitum with interest returns 
likely to cover all normal losses in the system as well as normal asset 
growth.
  America's bank customers as well as our competitive international 
financial position are well served.
  I'd like to speak about Title II of the bill before the House today. 
This title includes important legislation for the taxpayers of the 
United States, customers of the financial services industry and the 
industry itself.
  While I would have preferred to be here seeking support for more 
comprehensive financial services reform, the pending measure provides 
for Congressional action on several of the most pressing issues facing 
banking and financial services today.
  The provisions of Title II are carefully balanced. They enjoy the 
support of the administration, the American Bankers Association, the 
Independent Bankers Association of America, America's Community Bankers 
[S&Ls], the securities industry, the Conference of State Bank 
Supervisors, American Financial Services Association, and the Financial 
Services Council. The American Council of Life Insurance and the 
National Association of Life Underwriters do not oppose the title. In 
addition, many of the concerns of the Consumers Union have been 
addressed to their satisfaction. It is a common sense product.
  Title II combines sections of several pieces of legislation the 
Banking and Financial Services Committee has reported out over the past 
15 months. Perhaps the most important is the resolution of the last 
remaining issue from the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's--
refurbishing of the SAIF fund. The approach taken has received the 
support of the thrift and banking industries, a near miracle in itself 
in that S&Ls must pay a whopping multi-billion dollar, one-time 
assessment to the fund while the banks are required to pick up part of 
the S&L industry's long term FICO bond interest liabilities, with no 
additional contributions by the taxpayers.
  By our actions today Congress will be ensuring that there will be no 
default on the $780 million per year interest payments on the $8 
billion of Financing Corporation [FICO] bonds issued as a part of the 
savings and loan bailout. These bonds were issued in the late 1980's to 
capitalize the defunct Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. 
So far, all principal and interest on these bonds have been paid by the 
private sector. This bill retains private sector responsibility for 
these bonds and by broadening industrial accountability guarantees 
against further taxpayer losses.
  Title II would capitalize the Savings Association Insurance Fund 
through a one-time assessment of $4.7 billion on the thrift industry to 
be followed by a sharing of the FICO interest payments by the Bank 
Insurance Fund [BIF] and the Savings Association Insurance Fund [SAIF]. 
It is important to stress that the taxpayers, who have already 
contributed some $130 billion directly to the bailout with another $200 
million in interest payments to come, are not being called upon for any 
additional funding. They have paid more than their fair share.
  Title II also provides an important budgetary offset to the entire 
bill, allowing for increased spending for education, crime fighting, 
the war on drugs, the President's anti-terrorism proposal and other 
items of the Federal budget. Therefore, the taxpayers are twice saved--
once from taking on any additional spending for resolving the savings 
and loan bailout and second from helping fund the President's 
supplemental spending requests.
  The second section of the bill provides for significant regulatory 
relief for the Nation's banks, reducing duplicative and unnecessary 
paperwork and costs to the industry, which are inevitably being passed 
along to customers.
  While we have not added additional regulatory burdens and gone as far 
in one direction as the minority would have liked, we also have not 
gone nearly as far in the other direction as some would have hoped.
  In addition, the title contains a reform of the Fair Credit Reporting 
Act to further protect Americans from abusive invasion of privacy. This 
provision picks up many of the concepts approved by the House in the 
103d Congress, but never enacted into law.
  I retain reservations about certain provisions, but on balance the 
burden relief and fair credit reporting sections are finely tuned, 
reducing regulatory costs while retaining credible consumer 
protections.
  The need for the fair credit section was apparent during a hearing 
before the Banking Committee last spring when several individuals gave 
compelling testimony about how criminal gangs used modern computer 
technology to steal and misuse their credit identity. One Minnesota 
woman dramatically told about how attempts were made to withdraw funds 
from her mutual fund and retirement accounts and how multiple 
applications for credit cards in her name were issued, based upon 
information somehow obtained about here credit history.
  Hence, an amendment was added requiring the Federal Reserve Board, in 
consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, to further review 
whether organizations which collect sensitive consumer identification 
information are engaged in activities which create undue potential for 
fraud and to recommend appropriate legislative or administrative 
remedies.
  The Committee also heard testimony from law enforcement agencies and 
bank regulators about the use of fictitious financial documents to scam 
individuals, banks, pension funds and charities. Title II makes it a 
Federal crime to produce or use fictitious documents fraudulently. This 
new anti-crime provision will be another arrow in the FBI's and Secret 
Service's quivers in combating financial crimes.
  I would like to note several specific provisions of the legislation 
to clarify the intent of the Congress.
  The amendments to the Consumer Leasing Act retain current law which 
provides a special 

[[Page H12094]]

rule for the type of disclosure that must be included in radio 
advertising of consumer leases. This special rule recognizes that all 
of the required disclosure cannot be provided in a short spoken 
advertisement. Instead it requires that radio advertisements for 
consumer leases refer the listener to either an 800 number or a written 
advertisement in order to obtain additional information.
  Title II also includes a House provision to require bank regulators 
to take appropriate actions to prevent depository institutions and 
depository institution holding companies from facilitating or 
encouraging the shifting of deposits from SAIF deposits to BIF 
deposits. It is the intent of Congress that this provision be 
interpreted and implemented by the FDIC with great care to ensure that 
Constitutionally-protected free speech in the commercial marketplace is 
not abridged.
  Furthermore Section 2702 requires that the FDIC impose a special 
assessment on SAIF-assessable deposits. This payment is due on the 
first business day of the first month beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this act and is to be paid to the FDIC on the latter of 
the first business day of the first month beginning after the date of 
enactment or such other date as the FDIC chooses, but not later than 60 
days after the enactment date. Given the liquidity and regulatory 
difficulties that accrue to institutions with the presentation of a 
sudden large liability, it is the intent of Congress that the FDIC 
provide institutions the maximum latitude possible within the 60-day 
context to pay their special assessment.
  Section 2301 amends certain provisions governing the scope and 
mechanics of the audit functions for insured depository institutions. 
This provision eliminates the independent auditor attestation 
requirement for safety and soundness compliance, and allows the 
agencies the discretion to waive the requirement that all members--but 
not less than a majority--of the independent audit committee be outside 
directors in the case of hardship. Factors weighing in favor of a 
decision to grant a waiver include, but are not limited to, the 
following: that the institution is small, that qualified outside 
independent directors are unavailable, that the institution is closely 
held, and-or that the institution is well-managed.

  Further, Section 2615 prohibits Government-Sponsored Enterprises 
[GSEs] from certain kinds of associations with banks, credit unions and 
thrifts. However, it is the congressional intent that Subsection 
2615(a) would not preclude a GSE from sponsoring or providing financial 
support to an insured credit union established by a GSE with a field of 
membership comprised of the GSE's present and former full-time 
employees. The fact that a few such employees may also be customers of 
the GSE should not preclude such sponsorship or financial support.
  I'd also like to comment on the provision of the bill which clarifies 
the liability of financial institutions with regard to a 1992 
Environmental Protection Agency rule. Under this provision, lenders 
would be financially liable for environmental clean up costs only if 
they actually participated in the management of the firm which 
allegedly caused the pollution. The mere holding of a financial 
interest or having ownership of the property as a result of a 
foreclosure does not make the lender liable.
  Finally, I worked for inclusion in this bill of bank modernization 
language and within such context--preferably full-blown Glass-Steagall 
reform, but at a minimum greater holding company and Section 20 
latitude--a provision supported by the independent insurance agents 
which would require all parties, including banks, which sell general 
insurance products to be State licensed. Regrettably these proposals 
have proven to be so controversial that agreement on them could not be 
reached in time for them to be included in this bill.
  These issues are not going away and will be addressed in the next 
session of the Congress.
  I realize partisanship hallmarks many end-of-the-session issues, but 
based on the content and context of this legislative package, I would 
hope support would come from both sides for final passage of the Title 
II provisions.
  In this regard, I am somewhat bewildered by the complaints from some 
quarters about process. Most of the provisions before the House today 
have been reported out of the House Banking and Financial Services 
Committee following extensive hearings. This Title, for instance, 
includes numerous sections or amendments offered by the minority side. 
Further changes were made within the past 24 hours in negotiations with 
the executive branch.
  Indeed, the BIF-SAIF section, arguably the most important in the 
bill, is basically picked up from legislation passed by the House a 
year ago and then reworked by the committee this past summer. The 
principal change from the provisions approved by the committee in July 
is the deletion of a Democratic-sponsored amendment to shift part of 
the FICO cost sharing to the taxpayer. That provision has been struck 
from the bill. Members of this Congress can go back to their 
constituents and report that they have addressed the last remaining 
aspect of the savings and loan debacle without any further taxpayer 
accountability.
  The other major portion of the Title incorporates regulatory relief 
measures approved by the committee last year. It is my view that the 
House Banking Committee went further than was judicious in early 
approaches to regulatory relief and that a number of provisions in 
earlier bills were properly pared back with my support because of 
administration and minority member concerns. Let me stress in this 
regard that in putting this legislation together, there has been far 
more minority input than on any piece of legislation considered in any 
of my years in the minority.
  This is solid non-partisan legislation. Less extensive than I would 
have liked, but nonetheless of historic dimensions. The provisions will 
have lasting affects, but most importantly, failure to act would have 
led to serious disintermediation in the financial community, failure of 
the SAIF, and new taxpayer liability for S&L losses. This banking 
title, on the other hand, provides a basis for long-term banking 
modernization based on the existence of the strongest financial 
industry insurance fund in the Nation's history. Indeed, absent a 
calamity, with passage of this legislation America's insured financial 
institutions will reach an historical first--a prefunded insurance fund 
capable of regenerating itself ad infinitum, with interest returns 
likely to cover all normal losses in the system as well as normal asset 
growth. America's bank customers, as well as our competitive 
international financial position, are well served.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference. I think 
it is nothing short of a great victory for us to come to a compromise 
after the struggle last year, and I want to commend my friend and 
colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for the great work he did in 
helping us with the provisions dealing with BIF-SAIF.
  I follow in line with the remarks of our chairman, the gentleman from 
Iowa, Congressman Jim Leach, in terms of recognizing the problem today. 
All of us are together in terms of trying to solve this problem in 
terms of BIF-SAIF and providing some streamlining and regulatory 
measures.
  These are reasonable, they are reasoned, and I think they are a 
positive step in the right direction. Hopefully, next year we will be 
able to do this on our own without relying on the strength of the 
appropriation bill and working this out in the House.
  This has been a tough measure to compromise on and to come to 
agreement on. I appreciate the patience of all who have worked on it. I 
want to commend the Clinton administration for standing up for 
consumers and making certain that the price of and the cost of this was 
not borne by reduction in terms of 30 years of consumer law, which 
happened to be undone and upset by a lot of misunderstandings and 
action that were proposed in earlier iterations of this bill.
  So I rise in support of this conference and ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for title II of this bill, 
the Banking Committee's product in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, although I would have liked to proceed this Congress on 
broader approaches addressing financial services modernization, the 
future of the deposit insurance funds, the merging of regulators; the 
issues of charter reform; and other power's issues, in the end, this 
product before the House today is an important step forward and one 
which is the result of a tremendous amount of work and seemingly 
nonstop negotiations over its innumerable iterations.
  This bill importantly recognizes that Congress must act today to 
resolve the differential between bank and S&L deposit insurance 
premiums. The so-called BIF-SAIF solution, including charter reform 
modernization is basically a product of bipartisan work of the 
Financial Institutions Subcommittee in 1995 that ended up in the failed 
Republican budget bill. Many other pieces of this bill's title II began 
in separate initiatives of the respective Banking Committees of the 
House and Senate. These key policy provisions that we will hopefully 
pass tonight envisions that the 105th Congress will act on charters, 
but this measure merges the funds and provides a pro rata FICO bond 
payment sharing and puts it in place regardless of the merger issue 
because all insured depositories, both bank insurance and savings 
association insurance fund will become a part of the one FDIC deposit 
base.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to move BIF-SAIF this year. SAIF 
institutions have

[[Page H12095]]

been moving forward with plans to work themselves out from under a 23-
basis point differential. Many SAIF-insured institutions have been 
seeking, in fact, to form national banks. Congress needs to act now 
while we can before it is too late and the SAIF deposit base erodes and 
the taxpayers of this country are once again liable. The banking and 
thrift industries have worked in good faith over the course of this 
Congress to achieve the product and policy in this measure, and 
hopefully this initiative will finally bring to conclusion the repair 
to the deposit insurance funds.
  Nevertheless, no group is entitled to a prize or reward of relaxed 
consumer protections or safety and soundness regulation for addressing 
and accepting the responsibility to assure a solvent deposit insurance 
fund. By recognizing some limits and a need to have bipartisan 
agreement on provisions, we were finally able to finally move forward. 
To that end the Clinton administration advocacy for streamlining and 
regulatory reform has averted the loss of many key consumer protection 
laws and policies.
  In addition to BIF-SAIF, title II of this legislation provides the 
lender environmental liability relief provisions, that is relief 
provisions for financial institutions which foreclose on properties 
involving hazardous or toxic materials. It also provides for many 
tempered regulatory burden relief provisions the result of compromises. 
Title II includes provisions clarifying the tax or deposit insurance 
covered status of retirement certificates of deposit. It includes Fair 
Credit Reporting Act, a measure that has passed both the House and 
Senate in the past, that will provide improved privacy protections for 
consumers and remedies for the risk and experience electronic muggings, 
the crime of today and tomorrow that we must do much more to arrest.
  This final agreement represents a victory of sorts for those of us 
who wanted to pass regulatory burden relief for financial institutions 
but did not unravel consumer protection laws of the past 25 years nor 
the potential safety and soundness of financial institutions. This bill 
provides regulatory streamlining, burden relief and sensible 
improvements in policy without harming key consumer laws nor 
jeopardizing the safety and soundness of financial institutions backed 
by the Federal deposit insurance fund.
  With improvements being made until the very end, the banking package 
before us was excised of many provisions that gave me great pause and 
to which I was opposed. Provisions which would have weakened the 
Community Reinvestment Act, Consumer Leasing, Truth in Savings, Truth 
in Lending, Rent to Own, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, high-cost 
mortgages protections, and a number of highly controversial Real Estate 
Settlement Procedure Act changes have finally been set aside as we 
receive the final package tonight. In previous forms, this legislation 
would have relaxed restrictions on permissible insider lending, 
weakened the legal responsibilities for outside directors of financial 
institutions, limited the ability of regulators to recover funds from 
the officers of failed institutions, and even weakened the role of 
independent audit committees, fortunately these policies were also 
removed.
  I want to recognize the important role of the Clinton administration 
in reaching many of these final compromises which eluded us for so long 
this session, I would have hoped that committee members could have 
accomplished more but I want to thank the Members and staff of the 
Banking Committee who I have worked with throughout this process and am 
pleased we have a product. We have here a adequate product, a 
compromise, a lesson learned. While I think this title is imperfect, on 
the whole, the package deserves our support. I remain hopeful that the 
committee will in the future regain a better comity and bipartisanship 
as we reconvene for the 105th Congress.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations who has done an outstanding job in that field.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by commending my chairman 
and his outstanding staff led by Jim Dyer. No one has worked harder to 
perfect this bill. They have done an outstanding job for the Congress 
and for the American people.
  I want to thank my wonderful staff, headed by Tony McCann. I thank 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, David Obey, and his fine staff for their 
cooperation in bringing this bill to fruition.
  Mr. Speaker, our section of the omnibus bill continues Congress' 
initiative to terminate duplicative and ineffective programs. There are 
13 new terminations in addition to the 100 that we achieved last year. 
We have frozen or reduced many administrative accounts.
  At the same time, we have increased funding for programs that work 
for people and that are a high priority for our country. For example, 
with respect to biomedical research through the National Institutes of 
Health, we have increased spending by $820 million, a 6.5-percent 
increase, and $371 million above the President's request.
  We have in that section of the bill preserved the principle that 
science, not politics, should decide how the money is best spent, there 
is no earmarking in the bill by disease and no line item for AIDS. 
However, we appropriate directly to the Office of AIDS Research to 
support that important research.

  The bill preserves NIH and gives it a substantial increase, because 
basic research can only be organized and supported through government. 
Research that is conducted by our universities and academic medical 
centers across the United States pays for itself thousands of times 
over in terms of health care cost savings. Biomedical research is an 
area where we lead the world both in the basic research and the applied 
research through the biotech and pharmaceutical industries of our 
country.
  Student aid in the bill is increased by $1.3 billion more than 
requested in the President's 1997 budget; and we increase Pell grants 
under the Republican Congress by 15 percent, whereas in the previous 
Congress they went down by 3 percent. The maximum Pell grant is 
increased from $2,470 to $2,700 in this bill, the highest maximum ever; 
the largest single increase ever in one year.
  Work-study is increased by over $200 million to $830 million, $151 
million more than the President's request. Perkins loans are increased 
by $65 million over the President's request. TRIO programs are 
increased by $37 million, to a total of $500 million.
  Head Start is increased by over $400 million to almost $4 billion. 
Special education, championed by the chairman of the authorizing 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Goodling, increased by 
almost $800 million to $3.8 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a summary of highlights of the bill available. 
I commend the work of my subcommittee members of both sides of the 
aisle and my chairman. We have fashioned a bill that meets the needs of 
the American people and does so in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my appreciation 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for their cooperative effort and to briefly 
acknowledge that today we can stand here and say that we are not going 
to shut the Government down. A great difference and a strike for 
balance over divisiveness. The American people are the benefactors of 
this process.
  Let me make several points regarding this legislation that represent 
a positive change. I would like to note, and that now the youth in 
Houston and around the Nation will have summer jobs, and we will have 
turned the corner from classifying the summer youth program as baby-
sitting jobs and have over $800 million in that program through this 
appropriation bill.
  Rather than continue to build jail cells, we will now have increased 
moneys in the Pell Grant Program, some $577 million.
  And, yes, through the Ryan White funding, we will be able to take 
home $450 million for emergency assistance, $470 million for 
comprehensive care, and $70 million for early intervention.
  I am concerned, however, that we do not have enough dollars for the 
census effort that will be very important to some of our urban centers, 
and would hope we will have an opportunity to remedy that.
  And, lastly, I would say that we need to consider the spectrum sale 
so that we would do it in a reasonable manner that would appropriately 
utilize this valuable resource for the benefit of America.
  I rise to express my views on this important omnibus appropriations 
bill that funds the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health 
and

[[Page H12096]]

Human Services, Interior, Justice, and State as well as many 
independent agencies for fiscal year 1997. Additionally I would like to 
add my appreciation for the work of Chairman Livingston, my friend 
ranking member Obey along with Leon Panetta of the President's staff 
for their solid effort.
  I support the provisions of the bill that have increased funding for 
education such as the increases for the Pell grant scholarship program 
and expand the number of low and moderate income students who receive 
financial assistance by 150,000 students from $3,650,000 to $3,800,000. 
The direct lending program is also funded at the amount requested by 
the President.
  Additionally, the funding for Head Start will enable the program to 
serve approximately 50,000 additional disadvantaged students. The Goals 
2000 program is funded at the amount of funding requested by the 
President, which will help raise academic standards for more than 6 
million students in over 11,000 schools.
  I am also very pleased about the $90 million increase in funding for 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that will help us to reduce the 
increasing level of drug use among our Nation's teens. The recent 
report from the Department of Health and Human Services about increased 
drug use by teens is certainly disheartening and we must strongly 
support the Safe and Drugs Free Schools Program. More money, however, 
is needed for treatment and drug prevention if we are going to be 
serious on this effort.
  Throughout the 104th Congress, I have worked diligently to strengthen 
and adequately fund the Summer Jobs Program. This bill provides $871 
million for the Summer Jobs Program, which is $246 million more than 
the amount appropriated in 1996. This will allow more than 550,000 
young men and women to have the important experience of going to work 
everyday, earning money, and developing a strong work ethic. This bill 
provides $895 million for adult training, which is $45 million over 
fiscal year 1996, and $200 million for the School-to-Work Program, 
which is $25 million over fiscal year 1996.

  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have been concerned 
about the issue of crime and violence and terrorism. This bill 
continues to provide adequate funding to implement the President's plan 
to put 100,000 police on the streets of our Nation. Furthermore, the 
bill contains provisions to make it difficult for individuals who have 
committed domestic violence to purchase handguns.
  With respect to antiterrorism, the bill fully funds the President's 
request of $1 billion to reduce terrorism and gives the Departments of 
Justice and Treasury the necessary resources to accomplish this goal. 
Hopefully, safety at our Nation's airports will be improved by funding 
to hire additional aviation security personnel and purchase new state-
of-the-art equipment to screen luggage. With the bombing during the 
Olympics and the crash of the TWA flight still fresh in our minds, it 
is the right thing for us to support funding for these initiatives.
  Moreover, additional funding for the Office of Drug Control Policy 
and the Drug Enforcement Administration will help us in our drug 
interdiction efforts and implementation of our overall national 
strategy to reduce drug use and drug trafficking in the country. 
However, this funding does not negate this Congress' responsibility to 
investigate charges of illegal drug sale moneys--sold in our inner city 
communities in the 1980's--used for funding the Contra's by this 
Government.
  As a member of the Texas delegation, I have been active in efforts to 
reform our Nation's immigration laws. The compromise on the immigration 
provisions was reached after much debate. As a result of this 
compromise, our Nation's borders will be more secure. I am pleased that 
there is no provision that would allow States to deny free public 
education to the children of illegal aliens.
  I was concerned about the restrictions on income levels for 
sponsoring legal immigrants but at the least the final version of the 
bill requires immigrants to have incomes of 125 percent above the 
poverty level to sponsor immigrants instead of 140 percent above the 
poverty level, which was the original proposal. Additionally, the 
proposal to deport and deny naturalization for immigrants who used 
means-tested benefits was dropped from the bill. The original provision 
to make sponsors responsible for emergency Medicaid costs for 
immigrants was also deleted from the bill.
  The verification requirements for immigrants in this bill are not 
more stringent than the requirements that were contained in the welfare 
reform bill. Moreover, the bill exempts charitable organizations from 
the verification requirements in the new welfare reform law and exempts 
battered immigrants and indigent immigrants from some of the deeming 
restrictions in the welfare reform law. Finally, the provision of the 
bill that would have restricted HIV treatment for immigrants was 
deleted from the final version of the bill.
  During the 104th Congress, I have been very concerned about the issue 
of health care reform and providing adequate funding for many research 
programs. The bill does provide an increase of $239 million for the 
Ryan White AIDS Program and funding to purchase new AIDS drugs. Funding 
for substance abuse prevention and treatment also received an increase 
of $221 million over fiscal year 1996. Finally, this bill has not 
increased the deficit, however more study should have been given to the 
proposed sale of the spectrum. This should not be done randomly or 
without study in order to suggest the best approach.

  The 104th Congress has been both difficult and demanding. I am 
grateful that we were able to finish this term on a positive note. We 
have preserved Medicare and Medicaid, and protected our families, 
seniors, and our children. And we have not shut the Government down!
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

                              {time}  2115

  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is a proud moment 
here. We have worked for well over a year on legislation that would not 
only provide meaningful regulatory relief but to conclude the final 
payment for the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's once and for 
all, and with this legislation, we are doing that.
  As the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit, which has the jurisdiction over these issues, I would 
like to say that the committee has worked very hard to see to it that 
we were fair in this closeout. Everything is very difficult to say when 
you say you are being fair. It is difficult to get everybody around the 
table. That is a big challenge, but I believe that we have done that 
here, and we have now achieved a solid BIF/SAIF package with regulatory 
relief, limited but nevertheless meaningful.
  First, let me be clear about the fact that I believe that it is 
essential that we successfully close the book on the deposit insurance 
system problems. And as a battle scarred veteran of the savings and 
loan debacle, I believe that if we were to leave this year without 
resolving this problem once and for all, it would have been a terrible 
dereliction of our responsibility.
  But here tonight with this action, we will have done the right thing, 
the right thing for the taxpayers, the right thing for the financial 
institutions that are involved.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we tried to be fair to all parties and I 
believe that we have. The BIF/SAIF package is a strong one, and I would 
like to point out that if I had my way we would do the total charter 
merger as a companion piece to this, but what we have in here, the so-
called Frist language, which defines when the insurance funds would be 
merged and when the mergers would take place, I think it is not only a 
good compromise but it is one that will work and work in the best 
interest of all people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here tonight, and I am very pleased to 
have worked with all the members of the committee to reach this 
conclusion.
  For almost 2 years, Congress has been working to develop legislation 
that would provide meaningful regulatory relief for insured financial 
institutions and to conclude the final payments for the savings and 
loan debacle of the 1980's once and for all.
  As chairwoman of the Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit 
Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over these key issues, my committee 
has worked hard to see that the final package is one that is fair to 
all parties concerned. Of course, fairness is a relative term. Everyone 
has a different view of what is truly fair to them. Getting all parties 
around the table was a challenge. Until now, as is always the case with 
issues relating to the financial services industry, developing a 
consensus package has been elusive.
  However, we have now achieved a solid BIF/SAIF package with a limited 
regulatory burden relief that will lay the groundwork for further 
debate in the 105th Congress.
  First, let me be clear about the fact that I believe that it is 
essential that we successfully close the book on the deposit insurance 
system problems. As a battle-scarred veteran of

[[Page H12097]]

the S&L debacle, I believe to leave this year without resolving this 
problem once and for all, would have been a dereliction of our 
responsibility. We have done the right thing for the taxpayers and for 
the financial industries wanted.
  Members from both sides of the aisle in the House worked hard to 
craft a bipartisan bill that was fair to all parties concerned which is 
included in this package. This proposal includes several key provisions 
that I believe are necessary for this BIF/SAIF package. As many of you 
know, I am a strong supporter of not only resolving the issue, but also 
for dealing with the problem in its entirety, which includes merging 
the commercial bank and thrift charters. That is why my subcommittee 
reported out HR 2363, the Thrift Charter Conversion Act of 1995, which 
not only dealt with SAIF/FICO funding but with fund and charter merger 
restructuring issues as well.
  At the very least, however, the so-called ``Frist language'', is 
included as part of the package. This language prevents the merger of 
the BIF and SAIF insurance funds until the charters are merged. The 
package also includes the so-called ``rebate'' provision that prohibits 
the FDIC from setting SAIF rates lower than BIF premium rates and 
requires the FDIC to rebate any excess amounts in the BIF.
  Aside from the BIF/SAIF issue, it was my sincere hope that any 
package would have included strong regulatory relief measures. The bill 
reported out of my subcommittee included important provisions to 
provide meaningful relief for the financial services industry. For 
example, my subcommittee-passed bill included meaningful reforms on CRA 
and the Truth in Savings Act. Unfortunately, the most recent package is 
a far cry from the originally reported bill. Nevertheless, be assured 
that in the next Congress I will continue to work for strong regulatory 
relief. In addition, I will continue to seek greater reform of the 
overly burdensome provisions in CRA, the Truth in Savings Act, Truth in 
Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. I am 
pleased, however, that the package includes strong lender liability 
language that provides relief and exemptions to institutions to banks 
which foreclose on properties that contain hazardous materials.

  Finally, as you know, in addition to regulatory relief and BIF/SAIF, 
the House Banking Committee has been working to craft legislation that 
will modernize the financial services industry. Unfortunately, this has 
led into a powers debate focused on bank sales of insurance. While I am 
a strong proponent of modernization legislation, I believe that it was 
right not to include any controversial insurance provisions. This is 
neither the time nor the place for taking up such a controversial 
debate. I am particularly pleased though that a provision was included 
that prohibits deposit insurance for the retirement CD, a tax deferred 
annuity contract that I believe could affect the safety and soundness 
of banks. This provision already has passed the House on the Suspension 
Calendar in a bill I introduced last session.
  I am pleased with this consensus package and I commend Chairman Leach 
for his leadership and commitment to pass such meaningful legislation. 
I would also like to thank Laurie Schaffer, Stephen Johnson, Gary 
Parker of my subcommittee staff, and in particular, Cindy Chetti of my 
personal staff, for all of their dedication and hard work during this 
Congress.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and 
I want to rise and first of all say to Chairman Livingston and Ranking 
Member Obey, congratulations on the work that they have done. I want to 
tell my colleagues that I am one of those, like so many before me on 
the other side of the aisle in the eighties, who said, the omnibus 
appropriations or continuing resolutions are not the appropriate 
vehicles in which we ought to legislate, and I think that is true. This 
process is not one that ought to be emulated. This process is one that 
will leave many people in the dark as to what this final product is.
  Having said that, I am supportive of this product. It is a product 
which came about through intensive negotiations and discussions between 
the administration, between the Republican majority with the sometimes 
participation, but mostly participation during the last couple of days 
of the Democratic minority.
  As to substance, as someone who, A, supports a balanced budget, and, 
B, supported the coalition budget which made room for investment in 
programs critically important to the welfare of this country, to the 
security and the opportunity of our American families and of our young 
people, I support the priorities that have been restored to this 
budget. I was one of those who argued in subcommittee and in full 
committee that we ought to restore at least $2.3 billion to the 
education component. In fact, we have done more than that. I 
congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for that accomplishment.
  The fact of the matter is that it is critically important for us to 
tell the American taxpayers that in terms of their investment in 
discretionary spending, that has consistently gone down while payment 
of interest and entitlements have consistently gone up. We cannot 
continue as a Nation to squeeze out discretionary investment in 
education, environment, job training, all the programs that enhance the 
capability of our people, our greatest resource to compete in world 
markets.
  I also would, Mr. Speaker, rise and say that the chairman of my 
subcommittee on which I am the ranking member will be leaving, the 
gentleman from Iowa, Congressman Jim Lightfoot, my friend, Congressman 
Jim Lightfoot is the kind of legislator that Americans should be and, 
in my opinion, are very proud. He is a man of common sense, integrity, 
honesty and commitment. And I want to say to my friend, Jim Lightfoot, 
that we will miss him, not only in this House but in this Congress and 
in this country from this House. And I want to say that I thank you for 
the bipartisan way in which you have shared with me the proceedings of 
our subcommittee, and given me the opportunity to work towards what I 
believe to be not perfect, but a good solution as it relates to the 
bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the really great, 
hard bargaining gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time and, Mr. 
Speaker, in addition to those who have been thanked already, I want to 
thank the staff of my subcommittee, Jim Kulikowski, the chief of staff, 
Therese McCauliffe, Jennifer Miller and all of the others who have not 
slept in three nights, who have just done absolutely yeoman work and 
they are still at it even as we speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this, I am going to say, 
``ominous'' appropriations bill. As Mark Twain said about Wagner's 
music, ``It's really better than it sounds.''
  We do not like omnibus bills. Nobody does. They are big, they are 
huge, you do not have time to go through them, and we have reason to 
fear them. But this one is really better than it sounds. Let me give a 
couple of good reasons.
  In my chapter of the bill, Commerce, Justice, State, there is $29.6 
billion in discretionary spending. Most of that money is for fighting 
crime, the Department of Justice, State and local law enforcement, the 
war on drugs, and getting control of our borders. $7.3 billion of it is 
for the war on drugs, $150 million more than the President wanted, to 
rekindle the fight against drugs, with major new initiatives in source 
countries and on the Southwest border where 70 percent of the illegal 
drugs enter our country. It included $3.1 billion to stop illegal 
immigrants and gain control of our borders, which is above what the 
President wanted, with 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 300 more than 
the President requested. There are serious increases in funding for 
detaining and importing criminal aliens. There is $300 million more to 
combat terrorism. There is $523 million for the local law enforcement 
block grant for your police force to apply and receive a grant. There 
is $1.4 billion for Cops on the Beat for the police in your local 
department, $770 million for your States to build prisons, and $25 
million as an incentive to States to treat kids who commit adult crimes 
with adult punishment.
  This is a good bill. Strike a blow against crime and vote for this 
bill.
  Let me close by thanking Chairman Livingston for a tremendous job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The Chair wishes to inform the 
Members that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 12 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 12 
minutes remaining.

[[Page H12098]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for yielding time to me, and I want 
to say that this conference bill does add money and increases the 
number of Pell grants available our young people, and that is a 
laudable section of this bill, given the fact that Senator Claiborne 
Pell comes from my State.
   Mr. Speaker, I do want to take everyone's attention to section 320 
of the Interior appropriations of this bill, which contains a 
prohibition on Indian gaming in Rhode Island that singles out one 
tribe, the Narragansett Tribe, and says that the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act does not apply to them and therefore they cannot engage 
in any type of gaming activities. By singling out this one tribe among 
558 tribes in this Nation and removing them from the scope of IGRA, we 
are setting a terrible and dangerous precedent and, not only that, we 
are once again breaking our word to the native Americans.
  I want to just say that IGRA provides that for any Native American 
tribe seeking the authority to game that they can game insofar as the 
State in which they reside allows for that gaming. And our State, we 
allow for quite a bit of gaming, over $558 million a year. Roughly 90 
million a year goes to provide for our citizens in the State of Rhode 
Island, and yet we are engaging in a double standard with our 
Narragansett Tribe. They are the only tribe in this conference report 
that is singled out like this.
  We had no hearings on this issue in the Committee on Resources. I 
think it is a really discriminatory measure for us to say it is all 
right for us to game, provide for our people, but at the same time say 
no, Native Americans, we are not going to allow you to do what we are 
doing ourselves.
  I think it is a double standard and unfortunately it marks one more 
in a repeated list of issues where this Congress has come down against 
the sovereignty of the Native Americans, and I think it is a sorry 
thing that it is in this CR.
  I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to a 
provision regarding the Narragansett Indian Tribe which was included in 
the Omnibus Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1997.
  Although I will be voting in support of the overall legislation, I 
want to make it clear that I feel that section 330 of the bill is a 
direct violation of the civil and sovereign right of the Narragansett 
Tribe in Rhode Island.
  In 1978, the Narragansetts signed a legitimate compact with the 
Federal Government and the State of Rhode Island in exchange for a 
portion of land that they could call their home and maintain their 
heritage. The Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act was a fair attempt to 
rectify years of culture anonymity and I am happy to say is still in 
place today. In 1983, the Narragansetts became a Federally recognized 
tribe with all the rights and privileges that accompany it, provided 
that they are consistent with the 1978 treaty. That year, the 
Narragansett's became a sovereign nation and fully earned the right to 
be treated on a government to government basis with other entities. The 
Tribe pledged to care for its people in much the same way the State of 
Rhode Island cares for her citizens. Education, housing, health care, 
to name but a few, are the concerns of the tribe just as they are the 
concerns of the Ocean State,
  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall held many years ago, in the 
case of Worcester v. Georgia, that ``Indian nations had always been 
considered as distinct independent political communities, retaining 
their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of their 
soil.''
  It is my belief as well that the Federal Government made a compact 
with Native Americans in exchange for a great deal of their land and 
resources. That deal was to respect the treaties that were made, and to 
recognize tribes on a government to government basis.
  In recent years, the Supreme Court has held that gaming is consistent 
with a Federally recognized tribe's sovereign rights. Understanding the 
sensitive nature of gaming, Congress passed the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988 to codify U.S. law regarding the 
sovereign right to Tribes to engage in gaming on their lands. I believe 
that IGRA is fair legislation which was enacted on a bipartisan basis 
to balance the rights of tribes and interests of States and local 
communities.
  The agreed purpose of IGRA was not to provide a method by which 
tribes could become rich. As the law clearly states, the revenue 
generated from gaming goes directly to essential tribal needs such as 
the health care, education, and security of the tribe. I am sure that 
if the public truly knew about the challenge that most Native Americans 
face, they would embrace IGRA as I have: as a mechanism for fair 
economic development.
  While the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act allows the State 
to share some jurisdiction over the Tribe's settlement lands, it gives 
the State no authority at all respect to gaming. Under existing law, 
the State has no authority to dictate to the Narragansetts how they may 
conduct gaming, other than by making gaming illegal for everyone in the 
State. If the State did that, then IGRA would not allow the 
Narragansetts to do gaming. But if the State allows bingo in any form, 
then the Tribe has a right under IGRA to have a bingo hall.
  Section 330, violates this concept and would fundamentally alter the 
balances that were struck in IGRA. Advocates of the provision have said 
that all they are trying to accomplish is to force the Narragansetts to 
be treated just like any other entity in the State of Rhode Island. It 
is clear, however, that by virtue of their treaties, and by the ruling 
of the Federal Court of Appeals, the Narragansetts are not simply any 
other entity, and should be afforded all the rights and privileges that 
are consistent with their existing agreements.
  In the end, I believe that this issue has become a fight to protect 
the civil and sovereign rights of a single Native American tribe. 
Unfortunately, because the Omnibus Continuing Resolution will not be 
amendable, I will not have an opportunity to strike this callous 
language from an otherwise fairly sound piece of legislation.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a victory for America--it's a 
milestone along the road toward balancing the budget. It hasn't been 
easy, but the Republican majority of this historic Congress has already 
delivered $53 billion in tangible savings for the taxpayers of this 
great country, while locking in program changes that will make those 
savings multiply in years to come. Sure, there had to be compromises--
and certainly all of us feel regret that we couldn't accomplish more.
  Of course, we are frustrated by the way the White House constantly 
moved the goalposts, at times to the point where some questioned 
whether the administration wanted a bipartisan agreement at all. We 
also had to contend continually with certain defenders-of-the-status-
quo naysayers in the other party who attempted to block us at every 
turn. But I am proud that this Republican majority held firm to its 
basic common sense principles for America: We will not abandon our 
glidepath toward a balanced budget; we will not eviscerate our national 
defense; and we will not accept endless government intrusion into our 
lives just because the President and the liberal wing of the Democrat 
Party have again made big government and more give away spending the 
centerpiece of their election-year gameplan.

  Mr. Speaker, we head home tonight proud in the knowledge that we have 
replaced the tired debate of whether we should balance the budget with 
a brave new dialogue about how to accomplish balance. We have ended the 
failed dependency trap of the welfare entitlement and implemented tough 
new illegal immigration policies. We have delivered common sense health 
insurance reforms to allay the anxiety of job lock and pre-existing 
condition exclusions. We have brought about true reform to this 
institution, clearing away 40 years of rot caused by out of touch one-
party rule. And, we have finally begun to reduce the reach of the 
Federal Government into our everyday lives. This bill represents a 
sizeable downpayment on the brighter future that we promised to deliver 
for America's children and grandchildren. We kept our promises to 
America--and we have only just gotten started. Vote for this rule and 
this bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], a terrific magician, the very distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Interior, who has just done an outstanding 
job with competing forces.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a bill with magic in it because 
of the magic of our national treasures and what it does for the lives 
of people, the magic of going to a national park, the magic of taking 
your children to the national zoo where they will for the first time be 
given an opportunity to see the wildlife that is part of our ecological 
heritage. Truly it is magic, and

[[Page H12099]]

we have tried to protect those treasures in this bill.
  We have given the parks $70 million more for operations. We have 
provided more money for maintenance in the bill. We have provided for 
the Indians because they are part of the magic, too. They were the 
original people in this Nation. We have treaty obligations to our 
Native Americans for education and health. We enjoy much of what is 
part of our national heritage with the Native Americans. We have 
increased by $123 million the dollars that they will receive.
  We have put in money for fire suppression, for the hurricane damage, 
for terrorism. One of the less than magic parts of the bill is that we 
have to recognize on reality in terms of terrorism. But overall, and I 
think this is a little bit of magic in this, we are appropriating $1.3 
billion less than we appropriated for the same bill in 1995. This in 
spite of inflation, in spite of new responsibilities we have $1.3 
billion in savings. And that is a little bit of magic for our children 
because that means they will have less to pay in terms of debts and 
deficits.
  So I think it is a good bill with some innovative initiatives. We are 
putting money in a habitat conservation program in California that I 
think will be a model for the Nation. In this program they look at the 
economic as well as the ecological values and they work it out so that 
we can do both. And that is the magic of more jobs while at the same 
time preserving the quality of life. A provision for fees, also 4 
million in a clean streams initiative. This is a good bill.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who 
helped craft and is the author of the immigration provisions in this 
bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which contains the 
strongest illegal immigration measures ever passed. Every illegal 
immigration measure that we passed in the stand-alone bill last week, 
every phrase, every word, every comma remains in this omnibus bill. It 
secures America's borders. It stems the pointless flow of illegal 
drugs, protects American jobs and saves taxpayers billions of dollars.
  This bill also requires new immigrants and their sponsors to be self-
reliant rather than relying on taxpayers for support.
  For the first time ever, we require every new immigrant to have a 
sponsor. Just as we asked deadbeat dads to support the children they 
bring into the world, this bill requires deadbeat sponsors to support 
the immigrants they bring into this country.
  This bill has been changed though, Mr. Speaker. The administration 
put American taxpayers last when they insisted that we make it easier 
for noncitizens to receive welfare. They threatened to shut down the 
Government unless we make it harder to deport noncitizens who use 
welfare.
  I wish that all of these provisions had remained, but still this is a 
landmark bill. It puts our taxpayers, workers and communities first. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to commend both sides of the aisle for responding to the 
disaster that those of us in five States were affected by Fran and to 
recognize that there was a bipartisan response. Not all of the time do 
we respond in a bipartisan way, but indeed this is appreciated by those 
people who were suffering, $400 million is not all we need, but it is a 
significant movement in the right direction. I want to express my 
sincere appreciation for all those who are suffering in North Carolina.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of 
the committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, for 20 years I pleaded with the Democrat 
majority to please fund the unfunded mandate, the biggest we ever had 
in the history of this country, which of course is special ed. For 20 
months I have hounded the new Republican majority to please begin 
funding it. Tonight I am happy to say that there is a 10 percent 
increase in there. So I thank everyone, the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], everybody 
else who was responsible. But, more importantly, every school district 
in the United States says thank you.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out, based on 
the comments that the chairman made earlier, we have saved $53 billion 
for the taxpayers during this session of Congress. I always like to put 
that in terms of my constituents. A quick back-of-the-envelope 
calculation shows that that amounts to $200 per capita in this Nation, 
$200 for every man, woman and child, or approximately $325 per taxpayer 
or somewhere in the neighborhood of $450 to $500 per average family.
  That is a very substantial amount of money. Compared to the 
President's budget as submitted, it is even greater, 50 percent greater 
than the numbers I quoted.
  I think we as the 104th Congress can be very proud of this 
accomplishment that we have run a tight ship. We have reduced spending 
and we have saved the average family in America approximately $450 to 
$500 during this session of Congress.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I would like to mention that the agreement includes a provision 
proposed by the other body that $5 million be expended in substance 
abuse and mental health services for Native American populations, rural 
and Native American populations. No similar provision had been approved 
by the House, but this is a very important provision in Indian country. 
We passed a bill very important that dealt with Native American housing 
earlier. I want to commend the conferees for putting this money in for 
mental health services and substance abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Let me conclude with the 
immigration provisions. I think the President deserves credit for 
sticking up for legal immigrants in the bill. The bill still has some 
flaws on the immigration side but nonetheless deserves support.
  The conference agreement provides $2,134,743,000 for the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] instead of 
$1,849,235,000 as proposed by the House in H.R. 3755 and $1,873,943,000 
as proposed by the Senate in H.R. 3755 as reported from committee. 
Within this total, the conference agreement makes available $58,032,000 
for the mental health knowledge development and application [KDA] 
program, $69,927,000 for the children's mental health program, 
$1,310,107,000 for the substance abuse performance partnership, 
$156,000,000 for the substance abuse treatment KDA program, and 
$168,800,000 for the substance abuse prevention KDA program.
  The agreement includes a provision proposed by the Senate in H.R. 
3755 as reported from committee to require that of the amount provided 
for SAMHSA, at least $5,000,000 be expended for projects serving rural 
and native American populations. No similar provision was included in 
H.R. 3755 as passed by the House.
  The conferees agree that SAMHSA should comply with the directives in 
the House and Senate reports accompanying H.R. 3755. The conferees have 
provided $1,500,000 for child care wrap around services for a 
continuing grantee under the Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Children 
Program. The conferees expect these funds to be awarded as a 
competitive supplement.
  The conferees have included sufficient funds for university-based 
evaluations of public and private collaborations which provided year-
round, school-based, early prevention and transition programs, which 
include middle school transition programs.

[[Page H12100]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the 105th Congress will not have the 
presence of the gracious gentlewoman that I would like to yield to at 
this point. I would like to thank her for her outstanding service as a 
Member of Congress for so many years, but also as the most recent 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in what will 
probably be my last time before this institution. I have enjoyed 
serving in this body, and I thank my colleagues for their friendship 
and support over the years.
  I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman 
Livingston, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking 
member, for including the SBA in this bill. The small business 
provisions included in the Omnibus Appropriation Act make a number of 
changes in many of our SBA programs. However, all of them have passed 
this House by a total of 408 to nothing fairly recently.
  The overall theme of the legislation, however, is better management 
of the loan programs. SBA guaranteed approximately $10 billion in life-
giving capital to small businesses every year. The 7(a) guaranteed loan 
program, the largest loan program at SBA, will provide over $7 billion 
in financing to small businesses this year.
  This bill preserves the 504 program, which is for bricks and mortar, 
lending through fees it allows for an expanded SBIC program, which is 
venture capital for small business. And all of this with greater safety 
and soundness for the American taxpayer.
  I want to thank all the members of the committee and the staff for 
their hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in what will probably be my last address 
before this institution. I have enjoyed serving in this body, and I 
thank my colleagues for their friendship and support over the years. As 
the Chair of the House Committee on Small Business, I am proud to take 
this opportunity to describe an excellent package of small business 
program reforms that is contained in this Omnibus Appropriations Act.
  This package is based in large part on H.R. 3719, the Small Business 
Programs Improvement Act of 1996, which the Committee on Small Business 
reported out in July of this year by unanimous vote. The bill was the 
product of intensive, bipartisan work. Earlier this month, H.R. 3719 
passed this body by a vote of 408 to 0. I appreciate the support that 
my colleagues gave to that bill, and I think that it speaks well of the 
spirit of teamwork and commitment to the welfare of the small business 
community that resides in the Committee on Small Business and this 
Congress.
  The small business provisions included in the Omnibus Appropriation 
Act makes a number of changes in many of our SBA programs. The overall 
theme of the legislation, however, is better management of the loan 
programs. SBA-guaranteed loans provide approximately $10 billion in 
life-giving capital to small businesses every year. The 7(a) guaranteed 
loan program, the largest loan program at the SBA, will provide over $7 
billion in financing to small businesses this year. As volume in the 
loan programs has increased, SBA staffing has decreased. I believe 
these events can be compatible, but only if the SBA relies on its 
private-sector partners to carry out the day-to-day operations of 
making, servicing, and liquidating loans.

  The SBA does not have the manpower or resources to be a retail 
operation. They cannot efficiently process every loan or handle the 
liquidation of each loan that goes into default. This is clear from the 
new subsidy rates--rates that have dramatically increased in the past 
year due to low recovery rates on liquidated loans. The time period for 
liquidating loans is substantially longer than the average in the 
private sector. It is time for the SBA to move the liquidation function 
to the private sector, where our bank and non-bank lending partners 
conduct these types of actions everyday, and harness those 
efficiencies. The SBA must assume the role of monitoring our lending 
partners, not trying to recreate operations that are done faster and 
better in the private sector.
  My colleagues and I realized the SBA's limitations, and this 
legislation will turn more functions of the SBA lending programs over 
to the private sector. In the 7(a), 504, and disaster loan programs, 
pilot projects have been created, giving lenders the freedom to 
liquidate defaulted loans. This should increase our returns and improve 
service delivery in our loan programs. The SBA simply cannot handle the 
load currently on its plate, as reflected in the increased subsidy 
rates.
  Other critical provisions in this legislation are those dealing with 
the 504 or Certified Development Company program. When the President 
released his budget for fiscal year 1997, we were hit with dramatically 
higher estimates of the subsidy rates for the 504 and 7(a) guaranteed 
loan programs. Last year, the Committee on Small Business moved 
legislation that reduced the subsidy rate in the 504 program to zero, 
making it a self-financed program that requires no appropriated funds. 
While the committee was disappointed and frustrated by the SBA's and 
OMB's inability to notify us in a timely way about these new estimates, 
we are committed to preserving the 504 program, if necessary, at a zero 
subsidy.
  A combination of new fees, to be shared by the lenders, the certified 
development companies, and the borrowers, and several program-
management improvements in this legislation, including the liquidation 
pilot project, result in the maintenance and strengthening of the 504 
program. It is vital that this lending program, which provides long-
term financing for expanding small businesses to purchase new physical 
space or equipment, continue to help small businesses and our economy 
grow. As my colleagues probably know, the 504 program is the only SBA 
lending program with a job creation requirement. While no one likes to 
place additional fees on small business borrowers, that was the only 
way to keep this important program going within the parameters of the 
available funds.
  This legislation also addresses some management issues in the 7(a) 
program and requires an extensive, private sector study of the subsidy 
rate calculations done by the SBA and the OMB. I hope this study will 
unlock the mysteries of the OMB subsidy rate assumptions and prevent 
future year surprises in this calculation. As with the 504 program, we 
are moving more of the day-to-day responsibilities for the loan 
programs to our most trusted private sector partners, our preferred 
lenders or PLP's. Accordingly, the preferred lenders will be provided 
with the full authority and responsibility to liquidate their own 
loans. The SBA has delegated many responsibilities to the PLP's, but 
has retained most of the liquidation functions with the agency. In 
addition, certified lenders [CLP's] will be able to conduct their own 
liquidations, with the assistance and oversight of the SBA. It is 
anticipated that the private sector will be able to perform this 
function faster and more efficiently, maximizing returns to the 
Government.

  In addition, this legislation requires that the low documentation or 
low doc program, which is an abbreviated form for the borrower seeking 
a guaranteed loan of $100,000 or less, be conducted only by PLP's, 
CLP's, or lenders with significant small business lending experience. 
This program, which was a pilot initiated by the SBA, has proven to be 
very popular among borrowers and banks, alike. However, the Committee 
on Small Business has received a good deal of anecdotal evidence 
suggesting that many lenders who have little or no small business 
lending experience, and no experience with SBA loans, are doing large 
volumes of low doc loans. As the low doc program now comprises about 25 
percent of the 7(a) program volume, my colleagues and I felt it 
important to act to preserve the integrity of the SBA's own 
regulations, which stipulate that low doc is for use by our most 
experienced lenders. We also place a limitation on any new pilot 
programs. The administration may experiment and try out new ideas and 
concepts to meet small business' needs. However, no pilot may comprise 
more than 10 percent of the 7(a) program volume. As we have seen, the 
program's subsidy rate is very sensitive to changes in the portfolio 
composition. Any pilot deemed successful can be statutorily created 
through the legislative process.
  Other provisions in the legislation continue to echo the theme of 
more reliance on the private sector to carry out the functions of the 
SBA programs. The SBA is required to contract out to one or more 
private entities responsibility for the servicing of 30 percent of the 
residential loans in our disaster portfolio. This pilot should show 
that the private sector can perform this function at less cost than the 
SBA and, hopefully, lead to a complete contracting out of this 
function.
  Finally, the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program and 
the Small Business Technology Transfer Program are reauthorized through 
fiscal year 1997. The Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration 
Program eliminates small business set-asides in four categories of 
industry, as long as small business participation in these industries 
are at least 40 percent. This innovative demonstration program has 
worked well, allowing all business to compete for Government contracts 
on an equal footing, without locking small business out of the process, 
or into a certain number or type of projects. This legislation does 
require extensive reporting on the progress of this program, to ensure 
that it is not operating to small businesses detriment.
  The small business technology transfer, or STTR program, is a 3 year 
old pilot program

[[Page H12101]]

created to harness the tremendous creativity and flexibility of small 
business to promote the commercialization of innovations derived from 
Federal research and development. This program partners small companies 
with nonprofit research institutions, such as universities or federally 
funded research and development centers. Through STTR, small businesses 
are allowed the opportunity to compete for a very small portion of 
Federal agenciess' extramural research and development budgets. In a 
very competitive environment, small businesses seek approval for 
proposals to turn Federal research into new products and applications 
for the commercial marketplace. I am very pleased that the STTR program 
will be continuing in fiscal year 1997, and hopefully, in years 
thereafter.

  The small business provisions included in the Omnibus Appropriation 
Act also contain improvements to the Small Business Investment Company 
[SBIC] program, which were inserted by the Senate and are based on S. 
1784, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent in July of this 
year. The Senate provisions restructure the SBIC program to incorporate 
a number of vital changes to program operations.
  Under the Senate's language the minimum capital requirements for new 
license applicants is increased. To be a debenture licensee, new 
applicants must have $5 million in private capital. To be a 
participating security licensee, new applicants must have $10 million 
in private capital; however, the SBA can approve a participating 
security applicant if it has between $5 and $10 million provided that 
its investment plan is sound. Furthermore, the language grandfathers 
all existing licensees, and there will be no restrictions on the 
availability of capital to any licensee--all licensees will be able to 
refinance or borrow additional leverage.
  The Senate provisions also includes two increases in fees to be paid 
by SBIC's. First, SBIC's would pay an annual charge of 1 percent on the 
value of all outstanding leverage granted after the effective date. In 
addition, the non-refundable up-front fee, which is currently 2 
percent, would be increased to 3 percent of new leverage amounts. These 
fees will greatly reduce the subsidy cost of the program enabling this 
Congress to provide more venture capital funding for small business 
than ever before.
  In addition to the reforms of the financing provisions, there are a 
number of changes designed to enhance the safety and soundness of the 
SBIC program. The SBA must ensure that each applicant for a license 
maintain diversification between the management and ownership of the 
licensee, and regulate SBICs closely to first, ensure that they do not 
incur excessive third-party debt; second, ensure that no SBIC receives 
leverage when it is under capital impairment; and third, require each 
SBIC to adopt valuation criteria set forth by the SBA to establish the 
values of loans and investments of each SBIC and that an independent 
certified accountant review these valuations annually. Finally, the SBA 
is directed to submit to the Senate and House Committees on Small 
Business a detailed plan to expedite the orderly liquidation of all 
licensee assets in liquidation. This plan is to include a timetable for 
liquidating the liquidation portfolio of assets owned by the SBA.
  The Omnibus Act also includes provisions to speed up the processing 
of applications from business entities who want to be licensed by the 
SBA as an SBIC, and requires the SBA to provide a report detailing the 
status of the application within 90 days. In addition, it states that 
no application can be denied because Congress has not appropriated 
sufficient funds to meet leverage demands. These provisions also permit 
the SBA to approve a new license applicant that has at least $3 million 
in private capital, so long as the applicant meet all other licensing 
requirements. Once approved as a licensee, however, the SBIC would not 
be eligible for leverage until its private capital reaches $5 million.
  Under the Senate provisions, section 301(d) of the Small Business 
Investment Company Act of 1958 will be repealed and all former 301(d) 
licensees, the Specialized Small Business Investment Companies 
[SSBIC's], will now become regular Small Business Investment Companies. 
The 301(d) licensees are currently restricted to investing in socially 
or economically disadvantaged businesses, mostly those owned by women 
and minorities. However, the SSBIC's have long complained that this 
restriction has hindered the ability of these important companies to 
grow like other SBIC's.
  In order to enable their growth, the legislation removes the 
investment restriction, but creates a special reserve of leverage 
available only to SBIC's who invest at least half of their funds in 
small enterprises. A small enterprise is a small business with a net 
worth of less than $6 million and a net income of less than $2 million. 
This merger will enable the smaller SBIC's to maintain their focus on 
financing for primarily minority- and women-owned businesses, which 
that are the smallest of our entrepreneurs, without any specific 
restrictions that might negatively affect the ability to seize 
investment opportunities.
  In lieu of the prior funding mechanism for the 301(d) licensees, the 
Senate language provides a new reserve of debenture funding for these 
smaller SBIC's. The fund will be financed through the proceeds of the 
existing preferred stock repurchase program. The availability of this 
special pool of leverage, along with leverage available to all SBIC's, 
will substantially increase the capital available for minority- and 
women-owned business investments.
  In addition, the Senate provisions require that each SBIC, regardless 
of its size, invest at least 20 percent of its aggregate dollar 
investments in smaller enterprises. This new focus is designed to 
ensure that the smaller businesses continue to obtain full benefit of 
the SBIC program from all its participants.
  The SSBIC provisions in the Omnibus Act contain some changes from the 
text of S. 1784, which unanimously passed the Senate. These changes are 
designed to address a number of the concerns raised by the SSBIC 
industry. Specifically,
  First, the SSBIC's will be completely grandfathered from the new 
capital standards, which are contained in the legislation;
  Second, the smaller SBIC's, which are essentially the SSBIC industry, 
will be unrestricted with regard to obtaining rollover or new leverage;
  Third, investment companies with less than $10 million in capital, 
but more than $5 million, will be eligible for the participating 
securities program; and
  Fourth, funds from the repurchase of SSBIC preferred stock will be 
set aside as a special reserve for debentures for the smaller SBIC's 
which is essentially the SSBIC industry. In addition, the specially 
set-aside debenture funds will be dedicated to investments in smaller 
enterprises--many of which are minority owned.
  I believe that the SBIC and SSBIC provisions set forth in the Senate 
amendment are reasonable and will in turn benefit the small business 
community. In the bipartisan spirit of cooperation that has 
historically surrounded small-business legislation, I urge my 
colleagues to support the small business program reforms included in 
the Omnibus Appropriations Act.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add additionally my thanks to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for the cooperation 
which he has given us in handling the labor, health, education, social 
services bill. He is a good chairman, and we very much appreciate the 
courtesies that he has shown our side of the aisle.
  I would also like to extend my appreciation to Martha Foley from the 
White House and also to Jack Lew, to Barbara Chow, Charles Keiffer, to 
John Hiley and to Franklin Raines, the new OMB director. A special 
thanks to Jim Dyer, who in his capacity as staff director has worked 
very well and very closely with all of us on both sides. Also from the 
committee, Jack Kole, and from my personal staff Christina Hamilton, 
Anne Georges, Joe Crapa, Paul Carver. Without the work of all of these 
people, we would not have been able to finish this monstrous effort 
without all winding up in the hospital. I appreciate their efforts very 
much.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, to conclude the argument and debate 
today on this final bill, I yield the balance of my time to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable Newt Gingrich, 
Speaker of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying I think this is 
truly a historic evening and that I want to thank everyone on both 
sides who made this possible.
  It took a tremendous amount of effort both here and in the other body 
and in the executive branch. It took a bipartisan effort.
  I want to particularly single out Mr. Obey and all of his staff and 
all the

[[Page H12102]]

members of his committee on the Democratic side who worked so hard, and 
I want to thank Chairman Livingston and his members and his staff who 
worked so hard.
  I want to pick up a little bit on what Mr. Obey said. Leon Panetta 
was up here, our former colleague, for 2 nights, until, I think, 4:30 
one night and until 7 a.m. the next, working to get this done, not to 
drag it out, not to get into some kind of a mess, not to hang around 
for an extra 10 days, but to get it done and to get it done in a very 
detailed, very thorough and, I think, remarkably bipartisan way.
  This Congress may at times have been very partisan. In the last week 
I think we have truly pulled the wagon together, the American people's 
wagon, in a remarkably solid way.
  I also have to say that John Hiley did a very able job representing 
the President. And at one point last night we were sitting right over 
here with Alan Simpson and Lamar Smith working on the illegal 
immigration bill. It was a truly bipartisan effort to scrub the bill 
and, I think, went from many, many changes to a very narrow range of 
changes and did it in a way that was very intelligent and very 
professional. I commend not just John but all the staff he brought with 
him from the executive branch.
  I would also say that Martha Foley very ably represented the 
interests of the President. That is the way it should be in our 
constitutional system. Remember, our Founding Fathers designed, in the 
Constitution, they saw themselves as engineers. They wanted a machine 
so inefficient that no dictator could make it work. So they put part of 
the power over here, and we get elected every 2 years and we all pay a 
lot of attention, every morning, to what the American people think. 
Then across the way they created the Senate to represent the States, 
where we represent the people and where this is the people's House in 
the constitutional model, that is the States House, and only one-third 
of the Senators are up. And so their view is different than ours. And 
where we are a new body every 2 years, they are a continuing body. And 
they never quite change their rules.
  They are deliberately and legitimately slower. When the country 
becomes more liberal, they do so more slowly. When the country becomes 
more conservative, they do so more slowly. That is the way it should 
be. Then the Founding Fathers took part of the power and put it 
downtown, and they elected an Executive every 4 years. That Executive 
has the power of the veto. And as we on our side found occasionally, it 
is a very powerful weapon.
  On the other hand, back when we were in the minority and we had a 
Republican President, we thought it was a wonderful weapon. I think all 
of us in this House have learned a little more about this process in 
the last 2 years.
  And then, just to make it really complicated, the Founding Fathers 
put a little building right over there called the Supreme Court which 
watches all of us. And their deliberate design was to create a system 
so complex and so cumbersome that no dictator could seize power and 
force it to happen and to create a system so cumbersome that no 
temporary tidal wave of popularity could force us to do dumb things 
that were not changeable.

  Some days it is very frustrating. Some days it is very partisan. And 
then occasionally it matures and it comes together and people listen to 
each other and you have a few weeks, as we did this summer, when in one 
short week we reformed the health insurance system so every American 
had a chance to go out and change jobs without preconditions. In 1 
short week, we passed the minimum wage. I would say to my friends, the 
Democratic Party, you won a great victory. Some of us swallowed more 
than we wanted to, yet it was clearly the American people's will. And 
the system worked exactly as it is supposed to.
  In that same short week, we reformed welfare, ending an entitlement 
after 61 years. And for some it was a bitter defeat and for others it 
was wonderful victory. Yet at the end of the week, everyone had won 
something and everyone had somehow felt accommodated that the process 
was working.
  Now we are here tonight. I could not say enough about Chairman 
Livingston, the team he assembled, the tremendous staff that Jim Dyer 
leads and the way in which this committee has served, saving $53 
billion in domestic spending for the American people, the most 
successful Committee on Appropriations from a taxpayer's standpoint 
since World War II. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
clearly played the lead role week in and week out and carried that 
burden.

                              {time}  2145

  And I would say candidly, without the tough negotiations, the hard 
work and the willingness of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to 
fight for his team but to fight within the process, this would not have 
happened, and I say to the gentleman, ``Dave, I commend you.''
  And I would say across the way, if I might, we have two great giants 
in the Senate, Mark Hatfield, who we will all miss, who whether one 
agreed or disagreed, whether it was early in his career as a young boy 
governor reformer, whether it was as one of earliest opponents of the 
Vietnam war as an act of conscience, whether it was the vote last year 
against the balanced budget, because he honestly voted out of 
conscience, or whether it was working with him as we all did the last 
week, a remarkable tribute to the American system.
  And his counterpart, I think probably the wiliest, the most clever 
and certainly the most knowledgeable Member of the Senate, Bob Byrd, 
who is just a giant who people will study for many centuries and say: 
That personifies the Senate at its most cagey, its most obstinate, and 
at the same time cherishes the ideals of why we have a Senate, even if 
we in the House often wonder why we have a Senate.
  And they, of course, look over here and wonder why we have a House, 
and that is how the Founding Fathers intended. And I would say of Keith 
Kennedy and that fine staff, they were absolutely invaluable.
  Illegal immigration. A tremendous breakthrough for all Americans who 
really do believe we must remain open as a land of legal migration, a 
beacon of hope for the whole planet, but we cannot be open for those 
who would break the law and come here. And yet tempered to some extent; 
we would argue about the tempering by very tough negotiations with the 
White House and with our friends, the Democrats.
  The defense bill: I would just say to my colleagues watching what is 
happening in the Middle East, and I say this as an Army brat, we in 
this Congress stood firm for our men and women in uniform, and we have 
provided them on a bipartisan basis with better equipment, better 
training and better resources, and it was the right thing for us to do 
for those who risked their life for America. And I am proud of 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and I am proud of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and I am proud of everybody who has 
worked on that, and I am proud of the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence], and I am proud of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums] and everybody who works on the Committee on National Security, 
and the two committees have worked together for a better America and 
for the young men and women who serve us.

  On health care I have to say fighting to balance the budget, saving 
money, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] was a giant for 
research, for the National Institutes of Health, for breast cancer 
research, and I say to the gentleman, ``John, we all owe you 
something,'' and those who get ill 20 years from now, who are saved by 
miracles of research that are undreamed of today, can look back to this 
Congress which said, yes, we will pinch pennies where it is wise, but 
we will not stint on the research that will save lives in the future. I 
thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership.
  On parks I would just have to say that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] has done a tremendous job on the Interior bill, we worked very 
closely together, and I thank all my friends on both sides of the 
aisle, and I thank, I hope, the other body which I do not think yet 
acted, that we may actually get a bipartisan parks bill through before 
the evening is out or before next week is out because it is good for 
America and there are a lot of things

[[Page H12103]]

we can agree on on strengthening parks.
  And finally, all of us are going home to a country that has the 
scourge of drugs and violent crime, and I just want to thank the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for his tremendous leadership in 
doing the right things to strengthen the FBI and the Drug Enforcement 
Administration and all the things that are happening there.
  And as we think about what is happening in the Middle East, I want to 
thank our good friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for 
his leadership on the foreign operations bill. It is a very hard task, 
and no one thanks them for doing it, but it is for America's future and 
for our role in the world, and we are grateful.
  Let me just say in closing I know some of my friends never quite got 
over my becoming Speaker, but that is all right in the historical 
process. I know that others were delighted that I was Speaker. I know 
that the American people will choose November 5. This is the peoples' 
House. It has been great to work with everyone, I think we are closing 
on the right bipartisan note, I think we do have accomplishments all of 
us can be proud of, from every background, from every part of the 
country, in both parties.
  This is one of the earliest times we have adjourned, I think the 
earliest since I have been here that we will adjourn, and I just want 
to say in what is quite unusual this early in this season:
  I wish all of you a very good time at home, a very safe journey 
whichever party you are in, whatever your campaign. I hope all of you 
have a very good future, and while it's very, very early, since we are 
not formally going to be in session, I actually wish all of you a very 
Merry Christmas. Thank you very, very much.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains one vital piece of 
banking legislation--a resolution of the BIF-SAIF problem. This 
provision--which has been developed on a bipartisan basis, in 
cooperation with the administration--would protect depositors and 
taxpayers by providing for the full near-term capitalization of the 
Savings Association Insurance Fund and ensuring against default on the 
FICO bonds issued to pay for the previous crisis in the thrift 
industry. The banks will help in this effort--as they should. Both 
banks and thrifts reap the benefits of Federal deposit insurance, and 
current healthy members of the thrift industry are no more responsible 
than are the banks for the thrift problems of the past. Both industries 
are now acting responsibility to put a potential crisis in the deposit 
insurance system behind us.
  I have always contended that BIF-SAIF was the only banking 
legislation that must pass Congress this year, and I am pleased that it 
will. In addition, regulatory relief legislation--most notably in the 
lender liability area--is also a part of this package. The lender 
liability provisions in the pending bill in fact build upon bipartisan 
legislation I first introduced in 1989, and reintroduced repeatedly 
over the years, eventually garnering 290 bipartisan cosponsors. In my 
view, the lender liability provisions are among the most significant 
elements of the reg relief package.
  I am also pleased the package contains the provisions granting 
limited purpose banks relief from the artificial and anticompetitive 
restrictions long placed on their operations. Since 1987, I have 
repeatedly introduced legislation or sponsored amendments that would 
correct this fundamental inequity. It is appalling that the correction 
has taken so long, but I am pleased to see it.
  In broader terms, there has long been bipartisan support for 
legislation truly targeted at reduction of regulatory burden, yet 
during this House session the issue has become highly controversial. In 
part that is because of issues left unresolved in the Banking 
Committee's deliberations on financial modernization legislation. We 
will not see modernization legislation in this session of Congress and 
I see that as a fundamental failure of the committee. This country's 
financial services policy is seriously outdated and modernization 
legislation is essential and long past due. But this is not an area 
where any one policymaker's vision can be imposed. Nor is it an area 
where the pull and tug between affected interest groups can or should 
be allowed to be determinative. All the affected parties have 
legitimate concerns and deserve a fair hearing, but it is not for them 
to resolve the issue. I believe a proper balance of competing interests 
could have been achieved, and consensus legislation on financial 
modernization produced, if we had worked cooperatively on a bipartisan 
basis to that end.

  Financial modernization is a policy area of national importance--
highly technical and politically controversial. It is an area where 
Members of Congress can and should do what only they can do best--work 
in a seriously deliberative and bipartisan fashion with the 
Administration to craft the best possible consensus legislation. If we 
move in that direction during the next Congress, we can succeed.
  The broader regulatory relief package has also been controversial in 
its own right, separate and apart from modernization issues. The 
central reason for that controversy was the gratuitous inclusion of 
provisions in the House bill that undercut important consumer 
protection laws under the guise of ``regulatory relief''. This ill-
advised effort to undercut consumer protection, coupled with 
unnecessarily partisan deliberations, has seriously and unnecessarily 
jeopardized our ability to accomplish anything in this area to date. 
Thankfully, House and Senate Democrats working with the Administration 
have ensured that all of the provisions adversely affecting the 
Community Reinvestment Act have been stricken from the bill and other 
provisions which had an adverse impact on consumer protection have been 
largely revised to our satisfaction. While the bill is not perfect in 
these respects, the final draft of the banking provisions represents a 
major turnaround on these key issues.


                                bif-saif

  This legislation includes proposals I have advocated throughout this 
Congress for the reform of the federal deposit insurance system. Two 
years ago, I joined with Senator D'Amato in requesting the GAO to study 
the deteriorating condition of the Savings Association Insurance Fund 
[SAIF] and to make recommendations to Congress. The study--issued in 
March of 1995--confirmed our worst suspicions that the SAIF was 
dangerously underfunded and that several major thrift failures could 
precipitate a new thrift crisis that could require additional funding 
from taxpayers. It also found that a projected 20-point disparity in 
insurance premiums paid by banks and thrifts would encourage further 
weakening of the SAIF and threaten potential default on the FICO bonds 
issued to help pay the cost of the last thrift crisis.
  Shortly after the report was issued, I introduced twelve separate 
bills that outlined several alternative approaches for addressing the 
problems of the SAIF fund. Many of these proposals were incorporated in 
the so-called ``BIF-SAIF'' legislation approved by the Banking 
Committee last year and are now included in this legislation. These 
provisions provide for the immediate recapitalization of the SAIF fund 
by SAIF-member institutions, the merger of the SAIF with the Banking 
Insurance Fund [BIF] in 1999 and the sharing of the long-term FICO bond 
debt by all insured institutions.
  These measures will finally bring closure to the thrift crisis of the 
1980s and will do so without any additional cost to American taxpayers. 
The thrift industry will commit over $5 billion to fully capitalize the 
SAIF this year and the bank and thrift industries will provide $16 
billion over 20 years to finance the FICO bonds. This is a significant 
financial outlay and a necessary one. While today's banks and thrifts 
cannot be held responsible for the thrift failures of a decade ago, 
they have an equal stake in preserving public confidence in our deposit 
insurance system.


                           regulatory relief

  Earlier House versions of the regulatory relief section of this bill 
raised very troubling concerns in the area of consumer protection. I am 
pleased that, because of the input of Senate and House Democrats 
working cooperatively with the administration, the bill has been very 
substantially improved in this area. I will speak only to three key 
areas of concern.
  Earlier versions of the bill would have effectively eliminated the 
vital Community Reinvestment Act by exempting most banks from its 
coverage and eliminating the only existing enforcement mechanism. The 
final draft of the banking section of this bill does not adversely 
affect CRA in any regard.
  Another major area of concern for me has been the elimination of 
civil liability under the Truth In Savings Act. Such an elimination 
would have totally undercut efforts to ensure compliance. The current 
bill would sunset the civil liability provisions in 5 years. It would 
certainly be my hope that long before we ever reach that date we will 
readily conclude that eliminating civil liability is a very poor idea.
  Finally, I do not believe the consumer leasing provisions belong in 
this bill. The absence of full and comprehensible disclosure in the 
area of auto leasing confuses, and at worst deceives, more and more 
consumers each day. We are very ill-advised to legislate on this issue 
without a full understanding of the problem and alternative ways to 
approach its resolution. Yet provisions were incorporated in the House 
bill without any prior consideration by the Committee whatsoever. The 
provisions which have survived are less problematic than the original 
House provisions, which actually eliminated civil liability in key 
areas, but they are very troubling nonetheless. I will continue to 
press for serious pro-consumer action in this area during the next 
session.

[[Page H12104]]

                            lender liability

  This continuing resolution also incorporates lender liability 
provisions which I strongly support and have advocated for 7 years. I 
introduced the first lender liability bill in 1989 in response to a 
small business in my district whose efforts to develop property were 
held up, not because of lack of interest or need, but by bank concerns 
about environmental liability.
  In 1980, the Superfund law was passed after the well-known problems 
at Love Canal, located in my district, came to light. As part of that 
law, we recognized that not everyone with a tie to polluted property 
should be held liable. Lenders, who hold a mortgage or security 
interest in property, could potentially be construed as ``owners or 
operators,'' so the 1980 statute carved them out from liability if they 
didn't take part in the management of the vessel or facility.

  However, court cases in 1985, culminating in the well-known Fleet 
Factors decision of 1990, eroded the certainty of the Superfund 
exemption. As a result, we witnessed a serious contraction in lending 
to certain types of borrowers and to certain parts of communities 
because of bank concerns about potential environmental liability.
  After hearings in the House and co-sponsorship by some 290 members of 
a bill I introduced to clarify secured party and fiduciary liability, 
the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a rule for lenders. 
That rule was overturned on procedural grounds and the clarity provided 
by the rule was lost.
  Today, this bill provides the certainty sought for so long. The 
legislation effectively codifies elements of the 1992 EPA rule into 
statutory language to provide clarity and certainty regarding the 
liability of secured parties and fiduciaries for contaminated 
properties. These provisions will spur lending to borrowers and 
encourage the clean-up and redevelopment of hundreds of unused 
properties across the country. This is done without any expenditure of 
taxpayer dollars and without any weakening of current EPA liability 
standards.
  The bill does not alter a lender's potential liability, in cases 
where liability is warranted; it does provide clarity and certainty on 
how to avoid liability. The bill restores elements of the EPA rule to 
protect Government agencies, notably the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, in the role of receiver or conservator of property. It 
provides certainty for fiduciaries, such as trustees, executors of 
estates, universities, pension fund managers and those involved in a 
trust role for securities. Finally, the bill provides reinforcement for 
the EPA rule on lender liability under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, a 
rule that is limited to petroleum underground storage tanks.
  The beneficiaries of this bill will be banks, insurers, guarantors, 
and others in the business of extending or supporting credit and those 
to whom they will now be able to lend without artificial constraint. 
But the ultimate beneficiary should be our environment. With lenders 
and fiduciaries free to undertake their responsibilities, they may be 
better able to support environmental cleanup of damaged properties. All 
lenders, at large or small institutions, will have a clear blueprint on 
how to be involved with properties with environmental damage and to 
help restore these properties to use. Fiduciaries, who frequently 
acquire properties in trust after they assume their duties, will be 
able to make decisions on properties without fear that simply taking 
real property could trigger personal liability.
  I am pleased that this measure, after so many years of effort, has 
finally been adopted. I must note that it was a pleasure to work with 
Congressman Doug Bereuter and Congresswoman Marge Roukema in the House 
Banking Committee to produce a version of this legislation not unlike 
the package that is before us today.
  I also want to acknowledge the many industry groups and individual 
firms who have worked for years to see this resolution attained. I 
would note in particular the work of the Environmental Lender Liability 
Coalition with some 100 companies, trade groups, State officials and 
others in remaining a constant source of support, information and 
expertise on this important subject.

  This small provision will have major ramifications for secured 
parties, fiduciaries, communities and the environment across the 
country and, I believe, all for the good.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support and explain an amendment 
in the Continuing Resolution which clarifies the effective date 
provision for Rules 413 through 415 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 
The immediate enactment of this amendment is necessary to prevent the 
reversal of the convictions of rapists and child molesters, and the 
supervision of relevant evidence in pending sex offense prosecutions.
  Congress enacted Rules 413 through 415 in the 1994 Crime Act. These 
rules broaden the admissibility of evidence that the defendant, in a 
sexual offense case, has committed offenses of the same type on the 
other occasions. At that time, Congress agreed to a deferred effective 
date provision when the rules were enacted, to accommodate procedural 
objections raised by opponents of the reform. Everyone understood that 
this would defer the application of the rules for at most 3000 days, 
and that they would be fully in effect after the end of that period. 
Under this effective date provision, the rules went into effect on July 
10, 1995.
  Recently, a problem has arisen in the cases where the indictment was 
filed before July 10, 1995, but the trial in the case has occurred, or 
will occur, after the date. Some judges have properly interpreted the 
effective date provision to make the rule apply in all cases in which 
the relevant proceeding--the trial--commences on or after the effective 
date of July 10, 1995, even though the case would be tried after that 
date. In United States v. Hollis Earl Roberts, 88 F.3d 872 (10th Cir. 
1996), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently adopted this 
erroneously restrictive interpretation of the effective date language 
for the new rules.
  This decision may result in the suppression of relevant similar 
crimes evidence in pending cases, like Roberts, in contravention of our 
judgment that evidence of this type should be admissible. It may also 
result in the reversal of convictions of rapists and child molesters 
that have already occurred in cases indicted before July 10, 1995, 
where the trial court admitted evidence under Rule 413 or 414.
  The following are just a few of the cases that will be affected:
  In the Roberts case, the defendant is charged with sexually 
assaultive crimes against three women. Several other women are prepared 
to testify that he raped or attempted to rape them as well. The trial 
court has already made a preliminary ruling that evidence of the 
defendant's other crimes will not be admitted independently of the new 
rules.
  In United States versus David Kee Mann, a case in New Mexico, the 
defendant was convicted of molesting an 11-year-old girl, following a 
trial in which evidence was admitted under the new rules. There was 
testimony at the trial concerning similar crimes by another 11-year-old 
victim, and by a woman whom the defendant had sexually abused 
throughout her childhood and adolescence.
  In United States versus Calvin Dean Peters, another New Mexico case, 
the defendant was convicted of a rape offense. He had previously been 
convicted of two other rapes, and evidence of these earlier crimes was 
admitted under the new rules.
  When Congress enacted the new evidence rules, these were precisely 
the kinds of cases in which we wanted to be sure that the jury would 
have the basis for an informed decision, including information about 
the defendant's history of similar crimes. However, unless Congress 
acts immediately, it is predictable that important evidence will be 
suppressed, and the convictions of sexual predators will be overturned. 
This is an unnecessary injustice because Congress has already made the 
decision that evidence of this type should be admissible by enacting 
rules 413 and 414.
  While some might argue this amendment presents a constitutional 
problem, this is not true. The Constitution's rule against ex post 
facto laws only prohibits criminalizing or increasing the penalty for 
conduct after it occurs. It does not limit the application of changes 
in evidence rules in pending cases. The Supreme Court has so held, most 
recently in Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 43 n.3 (1990).
  As a general proposition, changes in evidence rules apply to pending 
cases, as well as to those indicated after their enactment. The 
amendment I am proposing is necessary to correct the harmful effects of 
the Tenth Circuit's misunderstanding of our intent on this point in 
relation to rules 413 through 415.
  It is essential that Congress enact this legislation immediately--
before the end of this session--because of the effect of the Roberts 
decision on pending cases. The amendment will ensure that relevant, 
probative evidence will not be suppressed, and that convictions will 
not be pointlessly reversed, in the cases I have described and others 
like them. If we do not act, we will have to explain to the present and 
future victims of these sexual predators why we have handed the keys to 
the jailhouse door to their victimizers. I do not believe that any 
member of this chamber wants to be in that position. I strongly urge 
the enactment of this measure.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, division C shall be considered as 
the enactment of the conference report (Rept. 104-828) on H.R. 2202, 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996, with certain modifications to title V of the conference report.
  The legislative history of division C shall be considered to include 
the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference in 
Report 104-828, as well as the reports of the Committees on the 
Judiciary, Agriculture, and Economic and Educational Opportunities of 
the House of Representatives on H.R. 2202

[[Page H12105]]

(Rept. 104-469, parts I, II, and III), and the report of the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the Senate on S. 1664 (Rept. 104-249).
  The following records the disposition in division C of the provisions 
in title V of the conference report. (The remaining titles of the 
conference report have not been modified.) Technical and conforming 
amendments are not noted.
  Section 500: Strike.
  Section 501: Modify to amend section 431 of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-193) to insert the provisions in section 501(c)(2) of the 
conference report relating to an exception to ineligibility for 
benefits for certain battered aliens. Strike all other provisions of 
section 501.
  Section 502. Modify to authorize States to establish pilot programs, 
pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. Under the 
pilot programs, States may deny drivers' licenses to illegal aliens and 
otherwise determine the viability, advisability, and cost effectiveness 
of denying driver's licenses to aliens unlawfully in the United States.
  Section 503. Strike.
  Section 504. Redesignate as section 503 and modify to include only 
amendments to section 202 of the Social Security Act, and new effective 
date. Strike all other provisions.
  Section 505. Redesignate as section 504 and modify to amend section 
432(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide that the Attorney General shall 
establish a procedure for persons applying for public benefits to 
provide proof of citizenship. Strike all other provisions.
  Section 506. Strike.
  Section 507. Redesignate as section 505.
  Section 508. Redesignate as section 506 and modify. Strike subsection 
(a) and modify requirements in subsection (b) regarding report of the 
Comptroller General.
  Section 509. Redesignate as section 507.
  Section 510. Redesignate as section 508. Modify subsection (a) and 
redesignate as an amendment to section 432 of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Strike 
subsection (b).
  Section 511. Redesignate as section 509. Modify to change references 
to ``eligible aliens'' to ``qualified aliens'' and make other changes 
in terminology.
  Section 531. No change.
  Section 532. Strike.
  Section 551. Modify to reduce sponsor income requirement to 125 
percent of poverty level. Strike subsection (e) of Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) section 213A as added by this section. Make other 
changes to conform INA section 213A as added by this section to similar 
provision enacted in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996. Strike subsection (c).
  Section 552. Modify to amend section 421 of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to 
include the provisions in section 552(d)(1) and 552(f). Strike all 
other provisions.
  Section 553. Strike.
  Section 554. Redesignate as section 553.
  Section 561. No change.
  Section 562. Strike.
  Section 563. Redesignate as section 562.
  Section 564. Redesignate as section 563.
  Section 565. Redesignate as section 564.
  Section 566. Redesignate as section 565 and modify to strike (4).
  Section 571 through 576. Strike and insert sections 221 through 227 
of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2202, as modified.
  Section 591. No change.
  Section 592. Strike.
  Section 593. Redesignate as section 592.
  Section 594. Redesignate as section 593.
  Section 595. Redesignate as section 594.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman 
for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Members of both Houses 
for the yeoman's job of putting together this omnibus bill and meeting 
the numerous funding priorities in this tough fiscal environment.
  Many of us take for granted and do not recognize the arduous task 
this body faces each time they are asked to balance fiscal 
responsibility with our obligation to provide and our duty to govern 
effectively.
  I would also like to thank the Chairman and the members of the 
committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Appropriations, and 
the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations for having the vision 
to provide the funding for the Alameda corridor, to support the $400 
million in direct loans, as requested by the President through the 
Federal Highway Administration.
  While I was disappointed that unforseen circumstances caused the 
Alameda corridor project to be removed from a previous funding bill, I 
am pleased to see that the conflict was resolved and that this most 
important infrastructure project will be funded this year.

  The Alameda Corridor will provide this country with a fast and 
efficient gateway to Pacific rim trade and will bolster our ability to 
compete in the burgeoning economic area.
  Once completed the Alameda Corridor will generate more than 70,000 
local jobs and close to 200,000 new jobs nationwide. The expanded 
trade, created by the construction of the corridor, through the ports, 
will create new jobs related to manufacturing, production, and the 
shipping and trucking of goods.
  Today's funding environment requires a strong public-private 
partnership to finance projects of this nature. With over 75 percent of 
the cost of the project funded by State and local sources, the Alameda 
Corridor truly exemplifies the kind of public-private partnership that 
this Congress has long urged States and localities to pursue for 
important infrastructure projects.
  I would like to thank the members of the California delegation for 
working together in a bipartisan manner to effectively move the project 
through this body and to bring to fruition plans and blueprints that 
were conceived long before many of us where sworn into office.
  Let history reflect that the success of the Alameda Corridor is 
rooted in the bipartisanship that has helped to bring us to this point. 
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues from both 
parties and with President Clinton to see the Alameda Corridor through 
to its completion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3610, the Omnibus 
Appropriation bill for fiscal year 1997. There are many good provisions 
in this measure and I am pleased that the Congress and the 
administration could work together in producing this necessary spending 
measure while avoiding a shutdown of government services.
  Contained in this measure are specific provisions affecting the 
structure of the United States Postal Service. Specifically, section 
662 of title I provides for the creation of an independent Office of 
Inspector General, a long needed and important postal reform. This 
provision is similar in scope to provisions contained in my legislation 
H.R. 3717, the Postal Reform Act of 1996. H.R. 3717 has been the 
subject of four legislative hearings this term and a proposal for 
creating an independent Office of Inspector General received House 
support during the 103d Congress. Through this omnibus package, this 
important measure will be seen through to fruition.
  The need for an independent Office of Inspector General was 
highlighted by the General Accounting Office in its recent report to my 
Subcommittee on the Postal Service. Specifically, the GAO found that 
the current structure compromised the ability of the Postal Service 
Inspector General with respect to investigations and audits of the 
Postal Inspection Service. Current law provides that the Postal Service 
Inspector General and the Chief Postal Inspector are one and the same. 
This system is the product of the 1988 amendments to the inspector 
general statutes when the Postal Service first fell under the purview 
of the Inspector General Act.
  The General Accounting Office found that:

       The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act), 
     requires that IGs conduct audits in accordance with generally 
     accepted government auditing standards. These standards 
     require IGs to be organizationally independent of the 
     operations they audit. Because the Postal IG is the Chief 
     Postal Inspector and therefore not organizationally 
     independent of law enforcement operations, the Postal IG can 
     not audit these operations in accordance with the required 
     standards.

  Section 662 of title I of H.R. 3610 corrects this systemically flawed 
structure by mandating an independent Office of Inspector General. The 
Postal Service currently enjoys revenue fast approaching the $60 
billion mark. It touches each and every one of us 6 days a week and 
provides universal mail service in order to bind together our 
geographically diverse country. The Postal Service is far too important 
for Congress and our constituents to leave the important role of agency 
watchdog to be compromised by a flawed management structure.
  Pursuant to these provisions, the Inspector General will be appointed 
by the Governors of the Postal Service and may only be removed, for 
cause, upon the written concurrence of seven of the Governors. 
Following appointment by the Governors, the bill directs the IG to 
submit a 5 year strategic plan outlining the goals and staffing 
requirements for this new office. The transfer of authorities from the 
Postal Inspection Service to the IG will include all specific IG 
authorities as contained in the Inspector General Act of 1978. 
Importantly, the position of Chief Postal Inspector will remain a 
statutory position within section 204 of title 39. The amendment 
directs that the Chief Postal Inspector will report to, and be under 
the supervision of, the Postmaster General. The PMG will be required to 
notify the Governors and both Houses of Congress should he remove or 
transfer the Chief Postal Inspector to another position within the 
Postal Service. Further, these provisions will not require

[[Page H12106]]

the support of the taxpayer funds as the Postal Service is self-
supporting and is not included in the omnibus federal budget.
  Mr. Speaker, these amendments are common sense, practical reforms and 
should prove to make our Postal Service more respective and 
accountable. Hopefully, these amendments will represent the first step 
that Congress will take toward tackling the arduous issues surrounding 
postal reform and I am optimistic that, in the next Congress, we may be 
able to further address these complex issues.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the 
conference report on H.R. 3610.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill providing 
fiscal year 1997 funding for the Federal agencies under the auspices of 
the Appropriations Subcommittees whose regular appropriation bills have 
not been completed, including Defense, Commerce, Justice, Judiciary, 
foreign operations, Interior, Labor-HHS-Ed, and Treasury-Postal 
Service-general Government.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, I want to give special attention to 
the Labor-HHS-Ed component of the bill. While at each stage of the 
regular appropriations process, the majority here in the House opposed 
amendments to protect and strengthen education, summer jobs, employment 
training, Head Start, financial aid, and substance abuse treatment and 
prevention, and in fact, zeroed out funding for Healthy Start--a pro-
life program that saves lives of babies, I am pleased, nevertheless, to 
say that I am encouraged by the investments that are now in this 
renegotiated version of the bill. However, the American people must 
clearly understand that these investments are the result of the 
Democrats and the President forcing the majority to do what is right 
for children, families, veterans, and seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, it is because we stood hard and fast on our commitment 
to protect and to improve the quality of life of Americans that this 
bill now provides:
  First, $556 million for safe and drug-free schools, so that children 
can have a safe and crime-free classroom in which to learn. Over 40 
million students in schools and classrooms across the country will 
benefit from this investment.
  Second, $7.7 billion is provided for title 1, so that disadvantaged 
children can have the assistance they need in basic reading and math. 
The $464 million increase will provide an additional 450,000 
disadvantaged children the resources needed to help them to achieve 
their highest academic potential.
  Third, $871 million is provided for summer jobs, so that 574,000 
youth who need and want to work will have the opportunity to earn a 
little money, and learn good work ethics.
  Fourth, $96 million is provided for the Healthy Start Program, so 
that families and their health care providers will have access to the 
critical resources they need to reduce infant mortality in poor inner 
city and rural communities throughout the country.
  Fifth, $43 million is provided for injury control and prevention, so 
that the CDC has the resources it needs to further reduce the Nation's 
injury and violence epidemic.
  Sixth, $12.7 billion, or an increase of $819 million, is provided for 
biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health.
  Seventh, $996 million is provided for Ryan White AIDS which includes 
$167 million for the purchase of new AIDS drugs.
  To restore the opportunity for students to pursue a college 
education, the bill includes $830 million for college work study, $158 
million for Perkins loans, $50 million for State student incentive 
grants, and the Pell grant is increased to the maximum award of $2,700. 
An additional 150 thousand middle- and low-income students will 
benefit.
  In addition, the bill includes $500 million for TRIO, $1.1 billion 
for the Job Corps Program and $1.3 billion for the Dislocated Workers 
Program. The bill also includes restoration of funding for substance 
abuse treatment and prevention, school-to-work, older workers programs, 
worker protections, LIHEAP, Goals 2000, libraries, and teacher 
training.
  While this is just a snapshot of the investments won on the American 
people's behalf, and while we have not been provided a copy of the 
measure that we are about to vote on, I am encouraged by the provisions 
I have highlighted here.
  I say encouraged because there are no assurances that the American 
people will ever really see the benefits of this investment. It is my 
hope that this is not just a paper exercise, or a mean hoax being 
played on the American people. I say that because it appears that the 
majority is already plotting post-election reversal of the concession 
made during negotiations on this bill. I understand the Republican 
conference chairman has been telling members to hold their fire on some 
funding issues because ``we can always have a rescissions bill in 
January.''
  Each of us recalls the GOP's fiscal year 1995 rescission bill which 
threatened the lives of the most vulnerable citizens by gutting funding 
for the same education, human services, employment training, and health 
programs which the GOP is now proposing investments for today.
  The poor children, ailing seniors, hard working families, and 
veterans of this country deserve a government that protects its quality 
of life, not jeopardize it.
  I ask my colleagues, in good faith, to vote ``yes,'' and to let that 
vote of ``yes'' also mean that they will not vote to overturn this 
measure in January.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, jingle bells, jingle bells, 
jingle all the way? This omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1997 is a huge Christmas tree, folks. The truth of the matter is that 
this huge Christmas tree can hide a multitude of errors and policy 
surprises if we pass it in our hurry to get out of town. Here we are, 
being asked to cast a vote on behalf of our constituents on a hastily 
prepared, barely reviewed, and full of who knows what. So, Members will 
stand up here and debate what little they know about the provisions of 
this catch-all bill, and we will vote on it. We will vote to provide 
appropriations for Defense, Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary, Foreign 
Operations, Interior, Labor-HHS-Education, and Treasury-Postal Service-
General Government, but we won't know the amounts that these 
Departments and agencies will receive because the final details are 
still being flushed out. Therefore, I cannot support this legislation.
  This large, end of the year, last minute spending bill is necessary 
because, for the second straight year, in the normal appropriations 
process the Gingrich-Dole Republicans insisted on including provisions 
that they knew the President opposed and that they knew the majority of 
Democratic Members, such as I, who believe in fairness and in following 
the rules, stood against; Democratic Members, such as I, who stand for 
support and protection of the working families of America; Democratic 
Members, such as I, who seek to provide for the vulnerable among us: 
the children, the elderly, the disabled.
  Until now, the Gingrich-Dole Republicans have opposed the valuable 
supportive programs that Federal funds guarantee across our 
communities. They have threatened reductions in health care, education, 
job training, crime reduction, child care subsidies, anti-terrorism 
efforts, and emergency assistance for persons affected by natural 
disasters. For the second straight year, the Dole-Gingrich Republicans 
have delayed the budget process--trying to get their way like a bunch 
of spoiled children--until we are bumped up against the start of the 
new fiscal year.
  But because the public has made clear its strong disapproval of the 
Dole-Gingrich Republican's Government shutdown tactics, this year in an 
apparent election year conversion, the Republicans agreed to negotiate 
on funding important priorities such as those Democrats are known to 
champion. We are told that the bill provided us at this time includes 
agreement on essentially all of the President's priority budget 
requests, to the tune of approximately $6.5 billion dollars. But don't 
be fooled. The Gingrich Republican leaders of this Congress have 
pledged publicly and over-and-over again, that they will move to 
reverse these politically convenient concessions after the elections if 
they retain the leadership of the Congress.
  Throughout the 104th Congress, I have been appalled at the tactics 
used by the extremist Dole-Gingrich Republican majority, designed to 
hold the Federal Government and the American people hostage to their 
extremist ideological agenda. Last year, in the passage of fiscal year 
1996 appropriations bills, the draconian budget cuts proposed by the 
Republicans attempted to deliver critical blows to children and their 
families in their education, their health, their jobs and their safety; 
but, the President and the Democrats stood up for the American people 
and forced the Dole-Gingrich Republicans to add back level funding for 
many of the programs.
  Mr. Speaker, at every turn of fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 
budget negotiations the Dole-Gingrich extremists, simply refused to 
carry out their Constitutional responsibilities to govern fairly and 
equitably. It has been unbelievable. Adding insult to injury, they have 
continued the dangerous game of chicken that they have been playing 
with the lives of senior citizens, workers, small business people and 
all citizens of our country.
  On the other hand, we Democrats and the President have stood so 
firmly in the face of extreme budget cuts and radically conservative 
tactics, that the Dole-Gingrich Republicans that control the Congress 
have been forced to accept the politically expedient strategy of 
negotiation in order to create an appropriations bill that would make 
it possible for the Federal Government to stay open a little while 
longer. Unfortunately, their best efforts are still not good enough for 
my constituents, not good enough for me and not good enough

[[Page H12107]]

for the American people. I oppose this last minute run to end this 
Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the procedure we followed on this 
continuing resolution should outrage every Member of Congress and the 
American public if they but knew.
  I understand that as a Democrat I am a member of the minority party. 
That means that the Republicans, as the majority party, have the 
ability to pass legislation to implement their policies. That is the 
system and I fully support it.
  I am not outraged just because I disagree with Republican policies 
against minority development. I am outraged because no one knows what 
is in this bill nor who put it here.
  If a measure had been debated, supported by a majority of members and 
then offered for inclusion in this bill, that would have been one 
thing. But it is entirely something else to include proposals which 
have never been scrutinized.
  The small business legislation which has been appended to this bill 
is a prime example.
  A small business bill, H.R. 3719, was considered in the House Small 
Business Committee, amendments were offered and votes were taken. It 
was a free and open process. Then, following the usual process, the 
decisions of the committee were set forth in a full and explanatory 
committee report. Finally, the measure was brought before the House 
under an open rule and was further amended.
  Since that time, the process which has been followed makes a mockery 
of our legislative process.
  The other body had earlier marked-up a bill related solely to venture 
capital programs at the Small Business Administration. In doing so, 
they repealed the only viable venture capital program directed to the 
minority small business community, the Special Small Business 
Investment Company program or SSBIC program.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, the other body voted unanimously for the bill, but 
did they know what was in it? I submit they did not. There was no 
committee report then or now. Instead, the measure was simply brought 
up by unanimous consent and certainly was not debated.
  A similar measure has been pending before the House Committee, on 
which I am privileged to sit as the ranking minority member. Neither 
bill, both of which eliminate an affirmative action program to 
encourage the providing of venture capital to minority firms, was ever 
brought before the House Small Business Committee for either amendment 
or approval.

  Why wasn't it brought before the Committee? I believe the answer is 
obvious: It could not stand the light of day. Members would have 
overwhelmingly voted to strike the antiminority provisions.
  I believe that they would have rejected other provisions which 
discriminate against smaller SBIC's by imposing requirements on them 
which are not proposed on bigger entities. How can the Small Business 
Committee advocate small business, except when they are involved in SBA 
programs?
  Mr. Speaker, I offered to sit down and talk about this major problem, 
repeal of a minority program. My overtures were repeatedly rejected. It 
was deemed essential by my Republican colleagues to quietly repeal a 
minority venture capital program, while at the same time they were 
publicly saying that they would defer legislative attacks on 
affirmative action until the new Congress.
  Instead of acceding to my request to talk, the Republicans had a 
better plan: Let the other body add the anti-minority provisions to the 
bipartisan supported small business omnibus bill and then force the 
House into an up-or-down vote on the whole package. That essentially 
gives the Members an impossible choice between hurting a number of 
small business programs they support or eliminating a minority program 
they support.
  Unfortunately for this plan, it required the unanimous consent of all 
Members of the other body, and it did not receive it.
  Did this bring my Republican colleagues to the negotiating table? It 
did not. Instead, they determined to take advantage of the confusion 
which reigns in the closing hours of a Congress and try to add the 
antiminority language to the voluminous provisions of the continuing 
resolution.
  Have they been successful in this attempt? Apparently yes. The lack 
of a bill for us to examine leads me to believe that the latest 
strategy has been successful.
  Earlier I had publicly stated that I would strongly oppose any small 
business bill which proposed the repeal of a minority program, even if 
the result, inter alia, would have been to close, at least temporarily, 
an SBA plant and equipment financing program, the 504 program, which I 
authored 16 years ago. And I would have done so.
  But now the stakes are much higher. I cannot vote to close a large 
part of the Federal Government and its programs by voting to defeat 
this massive appropriations bill.
  The Republicans have won this battle, which they would not have if 
the issue of affirmative action had been presented to the House for 
consideration on the merits, rather than being appended to volumes of 
other measures.
  I do take this opportunity, however, to advise my colleagues, that 
one of the first bills that I will introduce upon the convening of the 
105th Congress will be legislation to reverse the ill-advised action 
taken today, as I assume the appropriations bill will be adopted. I 
hope that a majority of my returning colleagues and my new colleagues 
will join in support of promoting the availability of venture capital 
to small firms, particularly those owned and operated by minorities.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I wanted to speak about a provision that 
was included in the subcommittee's version of the fiscal year 1997 
Interior Appropriations bill--H.R. 3662--but is not incorporated in the 
fiscal year 1997 omnibus appropriations package. More specifically, I'm 
talking about Section 317 of H.R. 3662. Section 317 authorized and 
approved the U.S. Forest Service's approval of alternative site 2 as 
the location for the Large Binocular Telescope atop Mount Graham in 
southern Arizona. I asked that this provision be removed from the bill, 
and I'd like to explain why.
  I offered an identical amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated 
Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Section 335 of the bill 
amended Public Law 100-696, the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 
[AICA] by permitting the use of a location as Alternative Site 2 on 
Emerald Peak on Mt. Graham for the construction of the Large Binocular 
Telescope. The Large Binocular Telescope [LBT], is the last of the 
first three telescopes authorized by the Arizona-Idaho Conservation 
Act. The language in Section 335 was quite simple. It stated that the 
use of Alternative site 2 ``is hereby authorized and approved and shall 
be deemed to be consistent with and permissible under'' the Arizona-
Idaho Conservation Act of 1988.
  Section 335 was made part of the act to ensure that the Mt. Graham 
International Observatory project could proceed to build and begin 
operation of the LBT at the earliest possible time, without further 
delays from litigation or other delaying tactics which were employed in 
the past and continue to this date. Those involved in the field of 
astronomy know that the LBT is a vital part of the observatory and its 
completion has been delayed far too long by those who have sought to 
stop this important project.
  As I stated on the floor of the House of Representatives when the 
Omnibus Recissions and Appropriations Act was being debated, the 
purpose of section 335 was ``to clarify, once and for all, that the 
alternative site for the Large Binocular Telescope falls within the 
parameters established by Congress for the Mt. Graham telescopes'' and 
that passage of this provision would close ``this unfortunate chapter 
of the Mt. Graham Observatory.'' It embodied the intent of Congress 
that, hereafter, opponents of the observatory would not be able to 
contend successfully that alternative site 2 was not covered by AICA's 
exemptions from otherwise applicable laws. As is clear on its face, the 
purpose of section 335 was to change substantive law by amending AICA 
to bring alternative site 2 fully within its protections.
  Despite the clarity of section 335, opponents of the Mt. Graham 
Observatory challenged the provision in court, claiming that it was not 
the intent of Congress to amend AICA to permit the construction of the 
LBT on alternative site 2 and also contending that any such amendment 
was unconstitutional. On June 17, 1996 the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision rejecting those claims. 
The court found that the operative provision of the section consisted 
of ``terms of present and future'' effect. The court concluded that 
section 335 ``specifies that the selection of--alternative site 2--
falls within the authorization of AICA.'' The court also found that 
section 335 ``is a change in AICA, which Congress is entitled to 
make.''
  Clearly, it was the intent of Congress that section 335 of the 
Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-134) effect a permanent change in AICA. Congress wanted to 
ensure the prompt construction and operation of the LBT, by its nature 
a permanent structure, as a part of the Mt. Graham International 
Observatory. Unequivocally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision 
validated our congressional action.
  Mr. Speaker, as the author of section 335 of Public Law 104-134, I 
can state with great conviction that the courts have interpreted 
congressional intent accurately and succinctly. Section 335 was 
intended to effect a permanent change in the Arizona-Idaho Conservation 
Act of 1988. Because this amendment to AICA has been accomplished and 
has been interpreted by the courts in a way which is consistent with 
congressional intent, I do not believe any further legislative 
clarification is

[[Page H12108]]

needed. Therefore, in view of the fact that AICA has been amended and 
need not be amended again, it is no longer necessary to include Section 
317 of H.R. 3662 in the 1997 omnibus appropriations bill. This is why I 
asked Senator Gorton to remove this provision from the Senate version 
of the 1997 Interior Appropriations bill and why I requested that House 
Subcommittee Chairman Regula not include the Mt. Graham measure in any 
further appropriations bill. Hopefully, Congress will not have any 
further need to clarify its intent regarding the Mt. Graham 
International Observatory project.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the economic 
development project planned in Florida for the Homestead Motorsports 
Complex. The international motorsports museum and tourist attraction 
will be a major, year-round economic development engine which will go a 
long way toward revitalizing the Homestead and South Dade communities. 
The museum and tourist attraction will bring in more than half a 
million tourists per year and generate more than 100 jobs in a wide 
variety of areas.
  The project is also a true public-private partnership, with the 
private sector committed to contributing one-third of the development 
costs, state and local governments another third and the Federal 
Government the remaining third.
   Mr. Speaker, in light of the economic distress which continues to 
plague Homestead and South Dade and the strong economic development 
potential of the proposed motorsports museum, I strongly believe that 
this project deserves grant support from EDA in fiscal year 1997.
   Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations in the 
105th Congress to advance this promising initiative.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act. Within this massive bill is a small 
provision that is of utmost importance to the people of Pacific County 
in my district.
  Along the southwest coast of Washington State, Highway 105 in Pacific 
County has eroded away under pressure from the wave action in Willapa 
Bay. The Highway is under imminent threat of being washed away--it 
could be breached at any time.
  I am pleased to report that this bill makes Highway 105 eligible for 
emergency funds so that action can be taken before the road washes 
away. This legislation will give the Federal Highway Administration the 
flexibility they need to ensure that the road does not breach.
  This is commonsense legislation. If the road breaches it would cost 
the Federal Government $30 million to repair the road. We would also 
have about a $82 million hit to the economy, particularly to small 
cranberry growers who would lose their soil forever if the ocean 
overruns the road. It would also impact a small Indian reservation that 
has a high infant mortality rate.
  This legislation ends a long process for the hard-working people of 
places like Tokeland, Grayland, North Cove, and Willapa. These people 
need the certainty that the road will not be washed out and that 
private property and cranberry bogs will not be destroyed. The action 
that will take place as a result of this proposal will give them this 
certainty.
  I want to thank Chairman Frank Wolf and Chairman Bud Shuster, both of 
whom worked with to protect the fragile environment and economy of 
Pacific County.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to 
explain just a few of the important highlights found in the 1977 
foreign operations and export financing appropriations bill contained 
in the Omnibus Appropriations bill now before the House.
  First, this bill includes a tremendous Republican accomplishment--the 
creation of a new $600 million child survival and disease prevention 
account. Each year millions of innocent children die from 
indiscriminate diseases. In most cases these deaths can be prevented. 
The establishment of this new account is a major step toward that goal. 
It also reflects the powerful commitment of this Congress to the 
eradication of infectious disease--including that cruel crippler of 
young children, polio--as well as the immunization of children 
everywhere.
  If there is a disappointment, it is that some in the executive branch 
have opposed our effort to focus on children and infectious diseases. I 
think it is time for administration bureaucrats to stop carping and to 
get on with this critical program.
  We also stood up to the administration on another extremely important 
issue affecting children. We firmly rejected the President's proposed 
cut in funding for the United Nation's children fund [UNICEF]. This is 
exactly the kind of foreign aid that really works and, not 
surprisingly, that the American people strongly support.
  Second, this bill continues to protect taxpayer dollars. As important 
as some of these activities are, foreign aid should not grow at the 
expense of domestic programs. We have provided a balanced mix of 
humanitarian aid, export promotion, full funding for the fight against 
narcotics, and continued support for long-term development.
  Finally, I want to thank the congressional leadership and the 
President's Chief of Staff for negotiating the difficult problem of 
international family planning and abortion. None of us are perfectly 
happy with the result. Nonetheless, it does seem to represent a fair 
outcome, one which reflects this bill's strong emphasis on protecting 
children. The Speaker, the majority leader, their staffs and mine--all 
deserve credit for spending hours in the middle of last night doing 
their utmost to protect mothers and infants from attempts by some to 
use Federal family planning in conjunction with private funding of 
abortion.
  I would also like to close with a well-deserved ``thank you'' to all 
the members of my subcommittee. Each and every one of them directly 
contributed to this very bipartisan effort. I appreciate it very much 
and look forward to working together with all of you again next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the conference agreement.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating Senator 
John Kerry for securing an additional $35 million for the Boston Harbor 
cleanup despite overwhelming hurdles.
  Senator Kerry and President Clinton managed to convince the 
Republican Congress that the Boston Harbor cleanup, the biggest 
unfunded mandate in this country, cannot be borne by the Massachusetts 
ratepayers alone.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see the Republican Congress is getting 
closer to coming around to our way of thinking.
  I'm glad to see the Republican Congress agreed with President Clinton 
this time and realized that he, and the Democrats in Congress, would 
settle for nothing less in this bill than increases in education 
funding, environmental protection, and more resources for law 
enforcement.
  But the first versions of this bill were unacceptable. And I'm sorry 
to see that after 2 years in the majority, my Republican colleagues 
still don't understand what the American people want. I'm sorry to see 
that, after 2 years in charge of Congress, the thing the Republicans 
are proudest of, their greatest accomplishment, is an empty ice bucket.
  And the reason that ice bucket is empty, Mr. Speaker, is because its 
contents were transfused into their veins just before they voted 
against school lunches and Medicare--all to pay for tax cuts for the 
very very rich.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the American people care about. 
The American people don't really care about tax breaks for the very 
rich. The American people don't really care about who sits where on Air 
Force One and they certainly don't want the House Republicans to cut 
their parents' Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
  The American people want their children to get a good education and 
be able to pay for college. The American people want stable jobs that 
earn living wages. The American people want their environment 
protected, not sold to the highest bidder. And the American people want 
their Government to stay open.
  Lucky for the American people, the Democrats in Congress listen to 
what they want. House Democrats have fought tooth and nail over the 
last 2 years to stop the bad ideas--to stop the ideas that can't pass 
the ice bucket test. And, Mr. Speaker, I think we've been pretty 
successful.
  Today's continuing resolution is the last example of that fight. We 
started out with a bill that didn't provide enough funding for the 
programs Americans care about like education, crime prevention, and 
environmental protection. And we fought until the bill got better.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of title II of 
the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997. Aside from the 
important resolution of the BIF/SAIF issue, this title includes 
important bank regulatory relief provisions. I would like to commend 
the stamina of our chairman, Jim Leach for pushing these important 
provisions. The Banking Committee and the White House came to an 
agreement at 5:00 yesterday morning to include provisions related to 
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.
  Inclusion of these provisions begins the process whereby Congress, 
consumer advocates and the settlement services industry can serve a 
public policy purpose rationally: first, the provisions protect and 
guarantee the rights of the consumer from illegal steering and other 
unethical practices, and second, the provisions provide the necessary 
regulatory relief that allows the flexibility to expand homeownership 
with innovative marketing, employee incentives and product delivery.
  I believe that all Members involved in this process would agree that 
RESPA, although well-intentioned and practical in the 1970's, is 
outdated in the 1990's. The act does not recognize technology nor 
provide flexibility to meet the challenges of the rapidly evolving 
settlement service industry of the 21st century.

[[Page H12109]]

  Congress enacted sec. 8 of RESPA in 1974 because of concerns that 
millions of homebuyers, who spend millions of dollars on required 
settlement services, such as title insurance and appraisals, would be 
steered to particular settlement providers if a person in a position to 
refer settlement services received a payment on a thing of value in 
exchange for a referral of those settlement services. Thus, RESPA was 
intended to keep the cost of settlement services down by prohibiting 
fees for mere referrals of settlement business.
  Since the 1970's, however, similar to other industries, the 
settlement service sector has been consolidating in order to maximize 
its efficiencies. These consolidations provide a new phenomena where 
``one-stop shopping'' provides affordable, simplified and accessible 
settlement services to consumers. Let's look at computers for example: 
in 1974 when RESPA became law, no one had access to computers; now, 
under the innovations of the industry, consumers have access to 
numerous national lenders and settlement service providers through the 
electronic media.

  In 1992, the Bush-Kemp administration recognized these changes in the 
settlement services industry and issued new and final regulations. 
These regulations, among other things, allowed for computer loan 
originations and the ability of an employer to pay employees incentives 
for generating and referring business to affiliated companies.
  Under the Clinton administration, however, HUD, beginning in 1994 and 
culminating in final regulations on June 7, 1996, sought to reverse 
these regulations and ultimately reverse marketplace innovations. HUD 
wants to prohibit employers from compensating their own employees for 
marketing the products and services of affiliated companies that 
provide real estate settlement services. This means that multi-
affiliate companies will not be able to compensate the employees of 
various subsidiary corporations to market settlement service products. 
Congress, in my view, never intended RESPA to regulate how employers 
paid their employees. Thus, HUD's interpretation of the RESPA statute 
as expressed in its June 7 regulation goes far beyond congressional 
intent.
  Because of the input by the settlement services industry, however, 
HUD recognized the technical difficulties associated with the sweeping 
nature of their rule, and just this week, published an announcement 
indicating its intent to issue a technical correction to their June 7th 
RESPA regulation. These corrections will include one of the most basic 
concerns--the ability to package settlement service products and will 
allow lender to package loan products.
  These corrections, however, do not go far enough, nor are they 
consistent with the full spirit and intent of Congress on this issue. 
Therefore, section 2103 of this bill includes an important provision, 
which delays the effective date to July 31, 1997 of HUD regulations 
relevant on employee compensation to bona fide employees. This 
extension will provide HUD more opportunity to refine and review its 
June 7th regulation, which, in its current form, would thwart 
marketplace innovations. Second, the provision will simplify disclosure 
requirements for referrals through technology.
  While I believe that HUD's interpretation of RESPA is narrower 
than Congress' intent, I understand that HUD believes it needs 
legislative guidance to keep in place the 1992 Bush-Kemp regulation, 
upon which the settlement service industry has relied for the past 4 
years. In my view, Congress has already spoken on these issues, and HUD 
correctly interpreted congressional intent in its 1992 regulation. 
However, given HUD's possible misinterpretation or stretch of 
congressional intent, we, Congress, will need further time to review 
and provide, once again, clear and explicit guidance.

  Quite simply, HUD without congressional oversight, will insist that 
Government regulations prohibit direct employee compensation or 
incentives through affiliated businesses at a cost to homebuyers. HUD's 
actions suggest that it believes that all or most real estate agents 
contrive against potential buyers. I will remind HUD that under a free 
market, the primary goal of any proprietor, including lenders and real 
estate agents, is to get the buyer and seller through settlement, 
inexpensively and expeditiously, so commissions can be paid and that, 
ultimately, the buyer will return to them in the future when they sell 
or buy another home. Thus, through the market itself, free competition 
will provide the premium consumer protection.
  I am confident that the delay in implementing the June 7 regulation 
will allow Congress to return to this issue with a more comprehensive 
approach, which could include a possible complete rewrite of RESPA.
  However, until then, HUD's antifree-market approach and patronizing 
demeanor with consumers only precludes a wider, more cost-effective and 
innovative approach to the availability of settlement services.
  Let's remember the people we are here to serve.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miami Free 
Zone and to encourage the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary to look favorably upon the 
Free Zone next Congress.
  The Free Zone processes an average of $1.35 billion in merchandise 
each year and employs directly 70 people. Its over 140 tenants generate 
employment for an additional 1,400 at the facility, and additional 
Miami employment, as a result of the Free Zone's activities, is 
estimated to be 2,150. In order to support this enterprise, the Miami 
Free Zone must maintain extensive 24-hour security for its 860,000 
square feet of warehousing, showroom and office space. This security 
costs over $500,000 per year in addition to $800,000 in yearly property 
tax. The Free Zone must pay these taxes even though the U.S. Customs 
Service is a tenant on the property.
  These costs are putting the Free Zone at a considerable competitive 
disadvantage over privately owned bonded warehouse operations 
throughout the State which offer the same advantages to foreign 
distributors without the security and strict, on-site customs 
regulations under which the Free Zone must operate. The result is a 
loss of control for U.S. Customs and security as well as a loss of 
economic benefits generated by the Miami Free Zone. Exacerbating this 
scenario are foreign trade zones which have been recently approved in 
the federally designated Enterprise Zone area of south Dade--only 10 
miles from the current Miami Free Zone. The advantages of the 
Enterprise Zone designation include a 96 percent property tax credit, a 
97 percent sales tax refund on machinery, equipment and building 
materials; and a 100 percent reimbursement of impact fees. Clearly 
these advantages will create unfair competition with the current, 
established Miami Free Zone.
  Further, these business disadvantages have resulted in the necessity 
of the Free Zone taking out $23 million in loans to provide a 
competitive environment which will continue to attract foreign business 
to the more expensive property. It is the debt service on these 
necessary loans which is now causing the Free Zone to lose money with 
disastrous economic consequences for south Florida. Given the 
complexity of this problem, I am convinced that congressional 
assistance is necessary in order to maintain current Free Zone 
operations in a secure, compliant environment.
  I believe the current burden on the Miami Free Zone could be lessened 
in several ways which would be fair to all parties involved and with no 
actual cost to the Federal Government. A Federal guarantee through the 
Small Business Administration Loan program for the Free Zone's $23 
million in loans, or a large piece of it, would lessen the debt burden 
through lower interest. This could be done at no real cost to the 
Federal Government. It is therefore my desire that the Small Business 
Administration work with the subcommittee to support a loan guarantee. 
The Miami Free Zone, technically a small business, has been a driving 
force in south Florida's emergence as a global trade center since the 
late 1970's and is an important focal point for the generation of new 
small- to medium-sized businesses and the creation of new jobs in South 
Florida. This is a case that cries out for special assistance; and I, 
therefore, urge your support to examine and help resolve this issue. 
Thank you.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. coleman

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 3610.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Coleman moves to recommit the conference report to 
     accompany the bill, H.R. 3610, 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 370, 
nays 37, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:

[[Page H12110]]

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               YEAS--370

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     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
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--37

     Barcia
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Burr
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Cooley
     Cox
     DeFazio
     Duncan
     Hall (TX)
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Klink
     Klug
     Largent
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Tiahrt

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Dornan
       

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Cardin
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Durbin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Green (TX)
     Hancock
     Hayes
     Heineman
     LaFalce
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Menendez
     Myers
     Quillen
     Taylor (NC)
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  2215

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Berman for, with Mr. Menendez against.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER and Mr. BEILENSON changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. SERRANO 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.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, H.R. 4278 is 
considered as passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

                          ____________________