```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5309-H5315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
       FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 151

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental appropriations 
     for additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], 
the former chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
All time yielded is for debate purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the 
conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 1158, a measure providing 
emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance and 
rescissions for fiscal year 1995. The rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration.
  In particular, I would note that the conference report violates 
clause 3, rule XXVIII, relating to scope, because appropriations 
related to the terrorist 
 [[Page H5310]] 
bombing in Oklahoma City were added to the bill in conference, and I 
know everyone is very supportive of that effort.

                              {time}  1615

  The debates on this floor are getting somewhat predictable. 
Fortunately, the American people are getting one message that is coming 
through loudly and clearly.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership, including President Clinton 
right at the top, are unquestionably, unwaveringly, and unalterably 
addicted to big government. We just heard the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] talk about the fact that we are for the first time in years 
turning the corner on that.
  There are a number of important emergency supplemental appropriations 
in this bill. However, I would especially call attention to the $6.7 
billion in supplemental funding for disaster relief in 40 States; not 
just California, 40 States are involved.
  I can assure the Members, Mr. Speaker, that in Los Angeles, in Los 
Angeles, where the impact of the Northridge earthquake is still felt, 
these funds are more critical than the rescissions included in the 
funding package.
  The budget debate in this House boils down to whether politicians can 
muster the courage and conviction to stop passing trillions of dollars 
of economy-choking debt to our Nation's children. This is one of the 
most important political debates in our history. It will impact the 
future of every working family in this country. This emergency 
supplemental is a miniature version of the budget debate that we just 
went through.
  The new majority in Congress has changed the way Washington does 
business. Rather than simply tossing new spending onto the mountainous 
Federal debt, as has been done in the past, we propose to pay for it. 
Is that so incredibly radical, Mr. Speaker?
  The Committee on Appropriations went back and reevaluated nearly 
every item in the fiscal year 1995 spending program. They tried to find 
what I call smart cuts. They used the following criteria: No. 1, 
spending that was not authorized; No. 2, duplicative Federal programs; 
No. 3, programs that receive large funding increases in fiscal year 
1995; No. 4, programs with unspent funds piling up from year to year; 
No. 5, programs that exceeded the level in the Clinton budget; finally, 
programs that are wasteful and do not work.
  Those are the criteria that they used in looking at these items. Only 
among big-government liberals in
 Washington are these considered radical criteria. The Committee on 
Appropriations took another radical step. They proposed to cut as much 
unnecessary spending as possible, not just enough to balance out the 
new spending. Only inside the Beltway here in Washington would people 
advocate only looking for enough wasteful spending to balance the 
amount of new spending, but the Committee on Appropriations very 
responsibly went further. We proposed to get this Government on the 
path to a balanced budget, the one that was just called for in the 
resolution passed.

  That, of course, gets us back to the balanced budget question. We are 
starting to see a clear trail here, Mr. Speaker, on the balanced budget 
amendment, despite strong bipartisan support, the President opposed it, 
and it came up short. However, he sure had the rhetoric down 
extraordinarily well, as many of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have in this House. He and his friends supported a balanced 
budget, not just that they supported the amendment. They said they 
wanted specifics.
  Then the Republicans came up with specific budget plans to balance 
the budget. Again, the big-government liberals, led by the President, 
ran for cover. Again there were excuses. We heard a lot of that here 
today when the House made history and passed this budget resolution 
that will put us on this glide path towards a balanced budget by the 
year 2002.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the President's staff indicates, and the President 
himself has indicated, that this emergency supplemental appropriations 
and rescission bill will be vetoed. We are the ones who responded to 
his request, and he was not at the table, and yet the call is that he 
is going to be vetoing it. Should we be surprised?
  On the one hand it is hard to believe that the President is going to 
veto the bill that provides relief to American families that have 
already suffered at the hands of earthquakes, fires, flood, and 
terrorism. However, look at it from the perspective of big-government's 
great protector. Every special interest that lives off the bloated 
Federal Government is frightened. They all think that they are next. 
The President and his very liberal allies in Congress are their great 
protectors. The great protectors' advisers have probably told him that 
if he does not oppose these cuts, special interests all over the 
country are likely to think that maybe the President will agree with 
Congress tomorrow or next week or later this year, that their special 
program is not absolutely critical to this Nation's future. Better to 
make it clear to those who live off the Federal Government that he is 
here for them.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. It makes history. 
Two months ago when a bill came to the floor providing funding for 
these priorities, and reducing spending to pay for it, people said the 
spending cuts would die in the other body. Apparently they misread 
things. They passed by a 99 to 0 vote. Now we have these veto threats. 
They could be wrong, too. If not, let the President make the case that 
in a $1.5 trillion budget, a 1-percent spending cut is too much.
  By the way, explain why those cuts are more important than this 
extraordinarily important disaster relief. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to support this very fair rule, this extraordinarily 
balanced conference report, which the American people are behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill really cuts things we should keep, and keeps 
things that we should cut. Even though, and I want the Members to 
listen closely, even though it is not as bad as the House bill, and in 
that we are all thankful, we are still left holding a big pile of 
favors for the well off at the expense of everyone else. The worst part 
is that $50 billion of these cuts are not even going to deficit 
reduction. They are going to provide a tax break for some 1 million 
people, 1 million of the richest Americans in the land. Those are 
figures from the Department of the Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel like yesterday I was standing here complaining 
about tax cuts for the rich at the expense of Medicare recipients. Now 
I am standing here complaining about tax cuts for the rich at the 
expense of education and housing. My Republican friends say they have 
to cut these programs to balance the budget, but President Clinton has 
shown us that it is possible to cut spending, and not cut the legs from 
under working families. President Clinton's bill cuts $110 million more 
than the Republican bill, but it does it without socking it to the 
middle class.
  The President's rescissions bill proves if you give up the idea of 
tax breaks for the very rich, then we can afford a lot of very good 
programs that benefit the rest of the people, programs for education 
and training, programs for crime prevention, programs for housing, 
programs for veterans, and the list just goes on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican rescissions package is a big, fat boon 
for expatriated billionaires, and a serious cut for working American 
families. Republicans have broken their promise not to cut Medicare, 
and they are breaking their promise to help working families. While we 
are on the subject of broken promises, Mr. Speaker, my Republican 
friends had promised not to waive the 3-day layover, and they have gone 
ahead and done that, too.
  Therefor, Mr. Speaker, we are getting used to this. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule. This bill, like the Republican budget, 
hurts the people who need help and helps the people who really do not 
need help. We do not have to gut education and crime programs to pay 
for tax breaks for the very, very rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER, Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in response to the 
last 
[[Page H5311]] gentleman's statements, there are no tax breaks in here, 
no money is going to people for tax breaks, because the conference 
agreement includes the amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia in 
the Senate. The President never got his list of rescissions to us until 
after the conference was closed, so there was no possible way for us to 
act on any of his ideas, even though we have been pleading with him for 
4 months to give us his ideas on rescissions.
  I do not know where the gentleman got this business about a 
billionaires' tax cut. This is an appropriation bill, not a Committee 
on Ways and Means bill. It has nothing to do with tax breaks.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, still basking in the glow of passing the 
first balanced budget in 26 years, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA, 
for yielding time to me. It is nice to have him down out of the gallery 
and here on the floor. He is doing such a great job.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference 
report it makes in order. This is the conference report that contains 
funds to try to repair just some of the damage that was done by the 
Oklahoma City blast, and yet the President has said he will veto it? 
This is the conference report that contains disaster assistance for the 
victims of the California earthquake, and yet the President of the 
United States has said he will veto it? This is the conference report 
which contains debt relief for Jordan, which the President says he 
wants, and yet the President has said he will veto it?
  This is the conference report, Mr. Speaker, which takes the first 
concrete steps toward reducing the deficit by actually cutting 
excessive spending out of this year's funds, and yet the President has 
said that he will veto it? What is going on here, Mr. Speaker? Is this 
the only way the President can try to prove that he is relevant to the 
setting of budget priorities, since he has failed to propose a budget 
plan
 which would lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002?

  As chairman of the Committee on Rules, I personally invited him to 
put that budget before us, and we would make it in order and have a 
legitimate, relevant debate. There was no proposal. It is unlikely, Mr. 
Speaker, that all 435 of us will ever agree on every detail of any set 
of budget priorities, because we represent different constituencies. I 
come from New York. We did not have the earthquake disasters in 
California, but yet, we have to support legitimate legislation, and 
this is just that.
  However, this conference report does agree to reflect the will of the 
House reached after, I think, 10 hours of the amendment process back 
when the bill was first considered in this House. There is a little 
sore spot involved, because at that time the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Stump], and myself, along with the help of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young], successfully passed on this floor by a vote of 382 to 23 
an amendment and that is overwhelming, 382 to 23 restoring funding for 
veterans medical care and veterans health care facilities, with the 
cost offset by reductions in AmeriCorps, and leaving the veterans' 
programs with zero cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report that in a compromise the conferees 
have restored AmeriCorps, the President's pet project, to where it was 
before this House acted, and put back in the cuts in veterans' programs 
totaling $81 million. I know conferees fought very hard against that, 
and I appreciate that, but as far as I am concerned, this conference 
agreement has already gone too far to protect the President's pet 
project, that thing called AmeriCorps.
  I am going to vote for this conference report, but if the President 
does veto the compromise agreement, I strongly hope and urge that our 
conferees or that this House will stick to the overwhelming position 
that this House took when the bill first left the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] 
have very difficult jobs, and they have done them so well. I just hope 
that this body, after the vote on the balanced budget resolution today, 
is now going to have the guts that the gentleman from Louisiana has and 
that the other members of the Committee on Appropriations are going to 
have in putting specific cuts out here on the floor for debate. I am 
going to support every one of them. That is a promise. They deserve our 
support, and they deserve our commendations.
  If the President is smart, he will sign this legislation, Mr. 
Speaker. There is one other point I would like to make. That has to do 
with the rhetoric that has been used with regard to the conference 
agreement on the budget debate. Repeatedly we Republicans have been 
accused of making cuts that are mean-spirited as we attempt to balance 
the budget, the most important issue facing this entire Nation over the 
next 5 years. What is really mean-spirited and what is greedy is to 
keep borrowing money and doubling the bills on future generations so 
liberal Democrats can make themselves feel self-righteous today.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, if they want to feel self-righteous, they should have 
the courage to step up here and offer balanced budget solutions of 
their own rather than just criticize those that we have offered.
  I urge support for this very vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and this conference report. I do so not because I oppose cutting 
spending, but because the conference report does not include the 
Brewster-Minge lockbox amendment which applied all of the savings from 
the bill to deficit reduction.
  The Brewster-Minge amendment would have reduced the discretionary 
spending caps to reflect the savings in each of the next 5 years from 
the spending cuts in the package, thereby applying the savings to 
deficit reduction. The Brewster-Minge amendment would have reduced the 
spending limits by $66.2 billion over 5 years. Incidentally, I would 
point out that the Brewster-Minge amendment uses the same approach to 
reducing the discretionary caps that was in the Penny--Kasich amendment 
offered by our former colleague Tim Penny and the current chairman of 
the Budget Committee John Kasich in the 103d Congress.
  The House overwhelmingly passed the Brewster-Minge amendment when the 
rescission bill was considered by the House, but the House leadership 
almost immediately began to back away from its support of the 
amendment. The other body passed a significantly weaker version of the 
lockbox that only applied the savings from the first year to deficit 
reduction instead of reducing the caps to lock in the savings for all 5 
years to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, the conference chose to 
accept the weaker version of lockbox that only applies $15.5 billion in 
savings to deficit reduction.
  The House conferees would have us believe that they had to drop the 
Brewster amendment because the other body would not accept it. However, 
I would point out that Pete Domenici, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee and a very influential member of the other body on budget 
issues in the other body endorsed the approach in the Brewster-Minge 
amendment during the debate on this bill on March 29. He said, and I 
quote, ``We could take this little $6 billion savings and make it recur 
each year, and we would be over $30 billion * * * We will have to do 
more than that.''
  I have heard some members argue that the savings from the lockbox 
amendment are irrelevant because we will reduce the spending limits 
much more in the reconciliation bill later in the year. If that is 
true, then I do not understand the objection to making those reductions 
now by accepting the Brewster-Minge amendment. Should we not lock in 
the savings now just in case we do not enact lower spending limits 
later in the year for whatever reason?
  Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill and send it back to 
conference so 
[[Page H5312]] that we can keep the strongest possible lockbox in the 
bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Everett, PA [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. To set the 
record straight, yesterday the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, Leon Panetta, stated that the President was disappointed that 
the conferees failed to rescind and included $130 million for nine 
separate highway projects in one congressional district, in my 
congressional district.
  The facts are that they had their facts all wrong. The truth is, and 
I know it is difficult sometimes for them in this administration to 
stick to the truth, but the truth is that the Senate attempted to 
rescind $141 million in 72 projects. This gentleman had only 2 projects 
in the 72 with a total value of less than $6 million.
  I regret deeply that this administration has decided to attempt to 
politicize what historically has been a bipartisan issue, 
transportation, and just this afternoon compounded their distortion 
with the double talk of saying what they really were talking about were 
10 projects in Pennsylvania that go all the way back to the 1980's.
  These projects that they talked about this afternoon have absolutely 
nothing to do with the rescission bill. This is classic double talk. I 
deeply regret that the administration is deciding apparently to 
politicize transportation.
  In fact, it is ironic the projects which they seem to attack this 
afternoon are projects which were passed into law by a Democratically 
controlled House, and projects which Leon Panetta voted in favor of 
when he was in this House. But their crocodile tears are simply that.
  The fact of the matter is the proof of their political activity is 
that the original House rescission bill had $131 million in old transit 
funds in it. Despite the fact that the Federal Transit Administration 
promised us they would not act on any of these rescissions to put the 
money out, they violated that trust. Between the time of the original 
rescission bill and when it came to the floor, the Federal Transit 
Administration pumped out $100 million in transit projects that were to 
be rescinded. Of course, these transit projects go to the big cities, 
largely to Democratic districts.
  Mr. Speaker, they have chosen to politicize transportation. I regret 
that deeply, but if that is the game they want to play, we know how to 
play that game.
  I would simply say to the Clinton administration downtown, if this is 
the way you want to treat transportation, we understand what you are 
doing. We regret it. We hope that you will rethink this partisan 
approach to transportation. But if you do not, then I can assure you as 
we move transportation legislation this year through the House, the 
national highway system, for example, and other transportation bills, 
we will have to respond in kind to the very sad approach which you seem 
to be taking to what historically has been a bipartisan issue, and, 
that is, transportation for the good of our country.
  Wonderful Jim Howard, Democratic chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure when he was here, used to say there 
are no Republican or Democratic bridges or highways; there are American 
bridges and highways. That is the way we Republicans still feel.
  I know many of my Democratic friends in the House here feel that way 
as well, but obviously the Clinton administration does not. They have 
chosen to politicize this issue. They have chosen to break trust with 
the House by pushing through $100 million in transit projects that were 
to be rescinded. I guess we are going to have to recognize it is a new 
and sad day.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct the impression 
left by the last speaker. The fact is, the last speaker arrives at his 
number by carefully excluding certain activities that were undertaken 
by the administration. The fact is, the administration's proposal would 
have allowed cancellation of projects in ISTEA, which is the 
authorizing highway legislation, as well as allowing the cancellation 
of appropriated items.
  If we look at all of the projects that the administration was talking 
about being allowed to cancel, including those in the authorizing 
legislation, there are 9 projects in the gentleman's district and there 
are 30 in the gentleman's State. The gentleman is correct that if we 
look only at what the Senate rescinded, or tried to rescind, that he 
only has 2 projects, but if we look at the totality of the projects the 
administration wanted to cancel in both the authorization and 
appropriation bill, then the administration's numbers are correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida [Mr. Goss], the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
greater downtown San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the chairman of another 
important subcommittee of the Committee on Rules, for allowing me such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very strong historic vote in this 
Chamber. It really was remarkable to be here and feel the sense of what 
is happening here. We sent a signal.
  Sadly enough, it is a little too late in fiscal year 1995 to balance 
our budget this year. But it is certainly not too late to cut our 
unnecessary spending in fiscal year 1995, and we have a chance to do 
that right now.
  Any day is a good day to save taxpayers' dollars. If you doubt it, 
just ask the taxpayer. Every day that we spend taxpayers' dollars is a 
good day to spend them wisely. If you doubt it, ask a taxpayer.
  This legislation starts us toward balancing the budget, which we just 
had a strong, convincing vote on. It does it in a big way. We are 
talking about billions of dollars.
  Why would we delay that? The answer is we would not. Why is the 
President talking of delaying that by vetoing our effort to stop bad 
spending now?
  Let's agree that there may be some disagreement with the President 
about what actually constitutes bad spending, but then let's look at 
the next thing. There could be no disagreement about providing prompt 
and needed relief to Americans, American citizens, victims of 
tragedies, and this conference report provides relief to such 
Americans.
  This conference report also saves money. This conference report is a 
responsible first step toward getting our spending under control. Why 
do we not pass it now? Why would we think that the President would even 
veto such a good piece of legislation?
  Why, in fact, did we hear from the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 
that there is concern about the 3-day layover waiver so that we could 
get to this legislation now and pass it and provide this relief?
  The waivers that we have provided for in the rule, and this is a very 
good rule for this type of legislation, show that the only things that 
are in this resolution are basically a provision to take care of the 
victims of Oklahoma, which I think everybody would agree is important, 
and recognition for Korean War veterans, which I think also everybody 
would agree is important. There is nothing else new from the original 
report. Consequently, there is no reason.
  Members are aware of what is going on here. I do not think there is 
any justification at all for not getting on immediately with this and 
passing this legislation and getting it down to the White House. I 
sincerely hope the President of the United States will agree there is 
no reason for delay.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think you will notice that I have a 
pretty worn and torn and tattered example of what will happen to not 
just the State of Texas but to many States 
[[Page H5313]] around the Nation. I carry this because these are not 
the numbers of the 18th Congressional District in Texas. These are the 
numbers of $1.1 billion that will impact the citizens of the State of 
Texas.
  Even as we begin to deliberate on the rescissions bill, I thought 
there was hope, as the process proceeded and we went forward to the 
Senate and then the conference committee, in order to be able to 
emphasize what all of us are concerned about, and that is helping to 
reduce the deficit.
  Unfortunately, when the bill returns we find that if you take it, you 
will lose it. What we will lost in Texas is $1.1 billion, only an 
example of what the rest of the country will lose as well.

                              {time}  1645

  Let me respond to the concern for those citizens who tragically have 
experienced a very serious loss. I have spoken to the administration 
and there is a response to those in Oklahoma City and California, the 
dollars are there for that kind of need. But what we do not have the 
dollars for, and what we are spending the dollars for, is a tax cut for 
those making over $200,000, and taking away money in this rescissions 
package from assisted housing that is needed all over the Nation for 
those who would need to have section 8 rental assistance. Those are 
working families that need those dollars, and I thought we were 
beginning to be able to strike a very good compromise on summer youth 
employment. That is what the young people have asked for in my 
district. They need to work. Oh, yes, they can work this summer, but 
folks, they will not be able to work next summer. And some of these 
people work to survive, to be able to go to school and in order to pay 
for clothes in order to get an education.
  Education, the school-to-work program that the Houston Community 
College came to me and said was one of the best programs in this 
Nation, is now being cut drastically, $12.5 million. Education in the 
Goals 200 Program, and those communities, rural, towns, and cities that 
are just beginning to rebuild their infrastructure and transportation 
system, well, folks, they are gone.
  Those who are just getting up the stairsteps, trying to make a system 
that is more mobile, trying to comply with the Clean Air Act, 
transportation dollars for those communities have now been cut $2.2 
billion.
  And the veterans, somebody said stop giving to the deadbeats, are 
veterans deadbeats? Are they the ones who have, in fact, given both 
their lives, some, but as well their support to this Nation? Well, Mr. 
Speaker, the veterans are being cut as well, $50 million.
  I thought I could support this rescission package in the spirit of 
cooperation, but not at the tune of $1.1 billion for the State of 
Texas.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
former mayor of Santa Clarita, CA, an area heavily impacted by the 
Northridge earthquake, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I always love to be introduced by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. He always makes you feel so 
good and has some flowery use of words.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule, and to decry the 
veto threats of the President's political advisors. There is no excuse 
for playing politics with working families in California who have 
suffered immense hardship from natural disasters.
  There are times when elected officials must rise above politics and 
respond to a crisis. When the Northridge earthquake devastated the San 
Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, and surrounding areas last year, I 
believed one of those times was at hand.
  I applauded the President for going to Los Angeles and seeing the 
destruction first hand. He met hard-working people who bravely faced 
the brunt of the disaster. It was not a question of Democrat or 
Republican, liberal or conservative, it was the President responding to 
an emergency that rose above politics.
  When the President asked Congress for $6.7 billion in supplemental 
appropriations to begin to rebuild in the face of massive destruction, 
my Republican colleagues in the House were determined to cut other 
spending to pay for the cost.
 Now, I accept second place to nobody in the desire to reduce Federal 
spending and balance the budget. However, I opposed my colleagues and 
supported the President's request without offsets.

  I argued last year that there are a few instances when providing 
relief rises above political fights. When a leader must make the 
difficult decisions, even stand against those who are usually his 
allies, in order to meet the needs of those who have been struck by a 
disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, by threatening to veto the conference report that 
continues to provide relief to communities decimated by last year's 
earthquake, the President is failing that test. He is letting down the 
families and communities who need this assistance. Has he forgotten his 
visit of last year? Maybe the political advisers urging a veto weren't 
with the President when he walked through the communities he now 
threatens to ignore?
  I recognize that it is difficult for this big-government President to 
support spending cuts. It was very difficult for me last year to vote 
to add emergency relief funds to deficit. But, I made a tough choice in 
order to help those disaster victims who needed it most. Ultimately, 
the political fights over balanced budgets were played out in more 
appropriate places.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's advisers have lost touch with disaster 
victims in California. Go ahead, oppose the balance budget amendment. 
Oppose the budget resolution. Oppose the appropriations bills later 
this year that will cut spending. But have the courage to accept a few 
cuts to enact disaster relief.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I must vote against the rule and this bill. 
It is an accumulation of unwise reductions in important programs. Just 
about every program in the Government was cut, housing, health 
research, transportation, clean fuel, nutrition for women and children, 
the elderly, every program benefiting the average person has been 
reduced by the Republican majority. But the amazing fact, Mr. Speaker, 
is that this bill does not cut the Department of Defense by one penny; 
a budget of $272 billion for the Department of Defense last year, and 
there are no reductions at all.
  I noticed in the paper this morning, Mr. Speaker, that the Department 
of Defense is getting ready to obtain procurement for a program of $60 
billion in new submarines. When I asked the staff who our enemy was 
that justifies the expenditure of $60 billion, I was told that the Navy 
came in and testified well, it could be Iran, it could be North Korea, 
it could be India.
  What kind of program is this? What kind of fairness is this when the 
programs that are so vital to the average person are being reduced 
substantially and the Department of Defense, which a great majority of 
the people of this country look to for having reductions, has not been 
cut at all? I shall vote against this program, Mr. Speaker. I think 
that the House should kill this bill. The President is exactly right in 
threatening to veto it.
  Particularly destructive is the so-called Taylor amendment.
  One point seven million miles of timber. Nine billion board feet. 
That is what the timber salvage sales amendment mandates. And this long 
line of timber is to be taken out of our national forests without the 
normal environmental protections, with no administrative review, and 
only limited judicial review.
  If you voted for my amendment to strike the timber salvage sales 
provision when the rescissions bill was before the House in March, 
there is no reason to change your mind now about this subsidy for the 
timber industry. In fact, there is every reason for more of you to 
[[Page H5314]] join me in rejecting this ill-conceived evasion of 
current law and invasion of our national forests.
  First, you will recall that the House version was limited to 2 years 
of salvage sales. The Senate version was to last only through fiscal 
year 1996, less than 2 years. But guess what, the timber lobbyists got 
their wish and the conference agreement extends all the way through 
fiscal year 1997. This giveaway now lasts 3 years. So, now you have an 
amendment that suspends all laws, yes, all laws, not just environmental 
laws, for a period longer than either the House or Senate version.
  Proponents of the amendment will say they have removed the mandates 
to sell 6 billion board feet in 2 years as contained in the House 
version. Yes, that is accurate. But read the statement of the managers. 
That is where the targets are and they are more than the Forest Service 
says it can reasonably and responsibly do. Now, nearly 9 billion board 
feet is demanded, 3 billion more than the original plan. And if the 
Forest Service is not able to match the targets of the managers, then 
there are veiled threats about what will happen to the Forest Service. 
The report says: ``The managers will carefully review the 
Administration's implementation of the salvage program, and, if found 
to be inadequate, will employ such actions as deemed necessary. Such 
action might include, but are not limited to, reallocation or other 
prioritizations to be determined by the Congress.'' A threat if I have 
ever heard one. Do not be fooled, there is still a mandate to get a 
specified amount of timber cut.
  All administrative appeals processes are eliminated. Judicial review 
is severely curtailed. All balance is thrown out the window. Just get 
the timber out the door. Do not worry about silting streams, do not 
worry about environmental protection; do not worry about Forest plans; 
do not worry about below cost sales; do not worry about contracting 
procedures. Just do it, or else.
  And the conference agreement goes beyond the House version by 
exempting the President's plan for the Pacific Northwest from all 
administrative review and as with salvage sales, also limits judicial 
review. There is no reason to do this. The President's plan has just 
recently received the approval of the courts. It takes time to refill 
the pipeline to reach the timber sales approved by the courts.
  Those who were allowed to participate in the discussions leading to 
this final version, and I was not invited, have exceeded their scope. 
They have gone beyond what either House agreed to in terms of length of 
the program and have added more exemptions to the Senate provision on 
the President's Northwest Forest Plan, exemptions that were in neither 
bill. This timber salvage sale provision now has more exemptions than a 
CPA's tax return.
  Yes, I care about forest health and acknowledge there must be timber 
salvage sales. That is not the question. The question is: Do we allow 
the Forest Service to harvest the salvageable timber in a responsible 
way or do we arbitrarily impose these capricious limits on agencies 
that think it is a mistake. The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, and the administration have moved to expedite salvage sales 
without abandoning appropriate checks and balances. We must let the 
professional foresters do their job.
  In the name of fiscal prudence, forest health and common sense, we 
should reject this fatally flawed conference agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my dear friend from South 
Boston how many speakers he has remaining?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, at the present time we have four speakers 
waiting with bated breath.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of rhetoric this 
afternoon about the task of balancing the budget. There is probably not 
a Member of this Chamber that does not in one way or the other have a 
commitment to balancing the budget. It is a question of how do we do it 
and do it fairly.
  The term shared sacrifice has been used a great deal. To me shared 
sacrifice means that we do not balance the budget on the backs of low-
income Americans, children, veterans, and the elderly. It means that we 
look to the broader community and ask who can contribute a fair share 
to this effort.
  I am struck because this year I had a visit from a person who has 
been very active in the Republican Party in my community. He came as a 
businessman. And he talked to me about the summer job program for 
youth, not because he in any way is connected with the program; his 
business does not benefit one way or the other. He is a former 
educator. He came to me because he believes in the program and he 
thinks it ought to be continued. And he paid his own way, he bought his 
own ticket to come to Washington, DC, to talk to me about this.
  To me, this speaks volumes about what this type of program does for 
our young people. The question is then, if we truly have shared 
sacrifice, how does this fit into the equation? What does it mean when 
we are trying to balance the budget and at the same time we strip out 
of the rescissions bill the provisions that would otherwise commit the 
savings to deficit reduction and allow them to go to tax cuts?
  This speaks volumes to me about the motives of those that have 
brought this bill to us for final action.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that what is happening here bears no 
resemblance to shared sacrifice. Instead we are asking youth, elderly, 
low-income, and veterans, with the budget that we have debated today in 
this rescissions bill, to tighten their belts by two notches while many 
other Americans are bellying up to the table for an extra dessert.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I recall very 
vividly that when we started the markup in our appropriations 
subcommittees on this rescission bill the first question that was asked 
of the chairman of the committee was why are we making these cuts, why 
do we have to make billions of dollars of cuts in nutrition, education, 
housing, mass transit, clean air enforcement, and the list goes on and 
on.
  The response we received was that we needed the funds to provide a 
tax cut. There was some embarrassment with that answer after a while 
and it shifted to well, we need the funds for deficit reduction.
  Why then, if these funds are supposed to go to deficit reduction, did 
not the Republican majority accept the Brewster Minge language for the 
lockbox to save the money that is in this bill for deficit reduction? 
It is very clear, and that is that the funds that are cut from 
education, nutrition, transportation, housing, et cetera, are once 
again to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
  Earlier today we saw Members on the other side of the aisle show us 
beautiful pictures of their children, and they are lovely. Indeed, we 
are all so very proud of our children, and it is hard to understand how 
we can treasure our own children while at the same time we come to this 
floor to cut education for the children of America and they are our 
children, too. How can we value our children and make all of the cuts 
that this legislation does in funding for safe and drug-free schools, 
for Goals 2000, and then down the line to vocational and adult 
education and student financial aid. This on the same day as the budget 
bill cut so much funding from the student aid programs for college 
education. In addition to that, in addition to that, there are millions 
of dollars cut in funding for displaced workers' programs to assist 
those who have lost their jobs due to imports, plant closings, and 
other economic reasons.
  There are many, many reasons to oppose this legislation, Mr. Speaker, 
but the education part of the bill and adult education and job training 
part of the bill and the summer youth programs part of the bill are 
enough reason for the President to veto the bill, and I am so pleased 
that he is.
  As a California member of the Committee on Appropriations I want to 
make another point, and it is that no person in any disaster in any 
part of this country will be deprived of their assistance if the 
President vetoes this bill.
  Indeed, I voted against this bill in committee and on this floor 
because I object to a bill that would say to the children of California 
you had a disaster, now in order to get assistance you are going to 
have to pay for it with your education and your nutrition and your 
housing.
                              {time}  1700

  So I think that the Clinton administration response to this 
legislation is appropriate.
  [[Page H5315]] I also want to say one more thing about the Clinton 
administration. They deserve a great deal of credit for the excellent 
response they have given to disasters that have occurred in this 
country. Jamie Lee Whitten deserves our gratitude and the President our 
commendation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman because in the last day and a half 
we have learned a great deal about rescissions. We have seen one giant 
rescission on the floor of this House as our Republican colleagues 
rescinded their commitment to the millions of American seniors that are 
counting on Medicare.
  And now we get three more lessons:
  No. 1, when it comes to making a choice, a choice between locking in 
savings from these cuts to deficit reduction and using it for a tax cut 
for the privileged few, the choice was easy; this House voted 
overwhelmingly to lock in those savings. But it was not 24 hours later 
than across the street the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
said, ``Oh, it is all just a big game.'' And it was just a big game 
because all along they needed every dollar of those cuts to give out 
tax breaks for their friends.
  Lesson No. 2: When it comes time to chop, who gets chopped first? 
Well, it is the middle-class families that are struggling to get up 
that economic ladder, to get their children educated, because the place 
that this rescission begins rescinding is in education and the Federal 
commitment to back up our local schools with education.
  Lesson No. 3: Loopholes last. The Senate approved language that would 
be part of this rescissions bill to condemn the atrocious practice 
where some Americans can actually go out and burn their citizenship 
card and at the same time burn the taxpayer. Is that loophole provision 
in here? No, sir, it is nowhere to be found in this conference report.
  We have heard a lot about disasters today. Well, let me tell you, as 
long as the priorities are to cut education first and to cut tax 
loopholes for the privileged last, that is a disaster.
  I am glad to have an opportunity to vote against that kind of a 
disaster by voting against this conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm.]
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report.
  Like many of my colleagues in the coalition and some beyond in my 
party, I believe in many of the rescissions included in this conference 
report.
  I am absolutely dead set, however, against taking these spending cuts 
and using them for a tax cut or for other spending.
  We had a way to guarantee that the cuts would go to deficit 
reduction. The Brewster-Minge lock box sealed up $66.2 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  I am not only willing to make that sort of cut, I am eager to do so. 
But I am not going to give up Rural Health grants, AHEC money, Safe & 
Drug Free School money, funds for Vocational Education--and much more, 
just so that money can be used for tax cuts.
  There has been a weakening of trust over the way the lock box in this 
bill was handled. An early understanding of $66 billion in savings 
disintegrated into something much smaller, $15.5 billion in this 
conference report.
  I would love to vote for a rescission bill--but not for the sake of 
tax cuts. If the President vetoes this bill, I intend to support him in 
that veto for purposes of restoring the lock box.

                          ____________________
```