May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4911

prescription drugs, like long-term care

for the elderly, and to try to basically

save some money as part of the overall

reform that he was making for all

Americans.

I think it is very, very unfair for

some of the Republicans to suggest

that somehow the President is not

being responsive on the Medicare issue.

He has been, he was, and when he was,

he did not receive cooperation from the

Republicans.

I just wanted to highlight that if I

could by a letter that was sent to

Speaker GINGRICH I believe last week

from Leon Panetta, the Chief of Staff

for President Clinton, and just to read

a couple of paragraphs if I could:

Last year, the President spoke directly to

the nation about the need to reform our

health care system and made clear that further federal health savings needed to take

place in the context of serious health care

reform. In December 1994, the President

wrote the Congressional leadership and made

clear that he would work with Republicans

to control Health care spending in the context of serious health care reform. The President repeated this offer in his 1995 State of

the Union speech.

The President has long stated that making

significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid

outside the context of health care reform

will not work. Such dramatic cuts could lead

to less coverage and lower quality, much

higher costs to poor and middle income Medicare recipients who cannot afford them, a

coercive Medicare program, and cost-shifting

that could lead to a hidden tax on the health

premiums of average Americans. That is why

it is essential to deal with the Medicare

Trust Fund in the context of health care reform that protects the integrity of the program, expands not reduces coverage, and protects choice as well as quality and affordability.

I could not agree more with what the

President suggests, that whenever

changes we make and whatever costs

are saved in Medicare have to be

looked at in the context of overall

health care reform.

Incidentally and importantly for me

because I happen to live in the State of

New Jersey and represent part of New

Jersey, there was an editorial in the

Star Ledger, New Jersey’s largest

daily, on May 3 that basically criticized the Republican budget proposals

and was critical of the fact that the

Republicans did not want to deal with

Medicare in the context of overall

health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just read parts

of this because I think it is so telling

in terms of the debate we are about to

engage in:

The editorial is entitled, ‘‘Messin’

With Medicare.’’ About halfway down

it says:

The Republicans say President Clinton

wants to hold Medicare reform ‘‘hostage’’ to

a broader plan for national health care reform.

Which would be the wise thing to do.

You can’t mess with Medicare without affecting other parts of health care and spending, certainly not in New Jersey where Medicare spends $5.2 billion a year on 1.1 million

beneficiaries, ninth highest in both categories. Consider the proposal to raise the

age of eligibility for Medicare to 70 so the

program can save about five years on each

persons’ medical bills.

I did not even mention that. That is

another option, I suppose, that you just

raise the age before you get Medicare

benefits.

That means shifting some of the $5.2 billion to employer-paid health plans to cover

all the years Medicare doesn’t. If not, retirees will either have to pay their own way or

go without coverage and care as they enter

the stage of life when they are likely to need

both most. Think of how many would come

of age for Medicare just in time for the program to pay the consequences of years of

government neglect of problems they’ve had

since they were young but which went untreated for lack of health care insurance.

Hospitals and doctors can treat them during those years and try to recover their own

cost by dropping it into everybody else’s bill.

If I could just interject. What the

Star Ledger editorial is saying, that if

you make these changes, cost shiftings

are going to occur essentially for everyone else in the private sector.

Private insurance is switching to managed

care. Health maintenance organizations and

other insurance plans send their members to

the doctors and hospitals which give big discounts, discounts that leave no margin to

cover what Medicare does not.

Shifting senior citizens into managed care

is another reform proposal. The HMOs say

they can do more for less because they hunt

for discounts and manage how many tests

and procedures and hospitalizations are ordered.

If the U.S. government doesn’t have

enough muscle to force prices down through

Medicare, it’s hard to imagine a private plan

that would at least not without cutting benefits drastically.

We face the prospect that Washington may

give seniors the ‘‘choice’’ of switching to illdefined managed care or staying with traditional Medicare at an increased out-of-pocket cost too onerous to make it a real choice.

That is really what my seniors are

most afraid of which is, are they going

to be given the option of some kind of

managed care system which basically

is ill-defined and which does not provide the coverage that they need, or,

which is more likely, they are going to

be staying in Medicare and paying

more and more out of their own pocket

in order to continue as part of the program.

Of course that really begs the ultimate question, which is, if you are not

in a position because you are too poor

or lower middle class that you simply

can’t pay those additional out-of-pocket costs that are the consequence of

these Republicans proposals, you are

going to go without medical care or

preventative care, get sicker and not

be cared for. That, I think, is the ultimate result of these Republican proposals.

I hope that as we go into the debate

over the next week or so that this

comes out and that the American public is able to realize what these

changes, if you will, in the Medicare

program that the Republicans are talking about really mean. I think the

changes are major and I think we have

to do whatever we can in this House to

prevent them from becoming law.

THE FEDERAL BUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. FOX

of Pennsylvania). Under a previous

order of the House, the gentleman from

West Virginia [Mr. WISE] is recognized

for 60 minutes.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, special orders are kind of interesting. What are

they about? I am sure the public looks

and they see that there is an empty

hall.

The benefit of special orders, that is

what we are in right now, is it gives

Members on both sides of the aisle, the

aisle being the central aisle down the

middle, it gives Members, Republican

and Democrat, on both sides of the

aisle a chance to lay out a little more

in detail, to expound more fully on

what they think is important, just as

Mr. PALLONE before me laid out some

of his concerns about some of the budget proposals that have come forward.

Often on the floor of the House,

where we are limited by how long we

can speak, whether it is 3 minutes or 5

minutes, where there is the hurly-burly

of debate, it is difficult to get out in a

reasoned way what it is that you really

want to say. That is why many on both

sides of the aisle take this opportunity.

I take this opportunity because I

want to speak about the budget. I want

to speak about what I think ought to

be in the budget. I want to respectfully

disagree with the budget that has been

presented by the Republican side, but

also lay out an alternative, to lay out

my budget, and I want to say this is

my budget, not endorsed necessarily by

anyone.

I think some important points need

to be made. In developing a budget, and

particularly a balanced budget, and everyone agrees on the need for balance

in the budget. We balance a budget in

our families, in our homes, in our businesses, in State and local governments.

But in balancing a budget, what is

the goal? The goal I think for the country is not simply to be able to point

with pride and say we have got a balanced budget. It is to be able to say we

have a balanced budget in the context

of a healthy economy because we take

the steps necessary for a healthy economy.

Yes, we believe that most of the time

that means there is a balanced budget.

But there are times in the Federal Government, not true necessarily in other

budgets, but there are times in the

Federal Government where it is necessary to run an imbalance, in times of

recession when people are being laid

off.

As businesses balance their budgets

by laying off, that is the time when the

Federal Government must come in and

pick up the slack. Otherwise, the recession only worsens.

A balanced budget is important, yes;

healthy economy, though, is the goal.

Let’s talk about it in terms of healthy

economy.

My concern is that if we adhere to a

7-year proposal, that is, ‘‘Thou shalt
H 4912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 12, 1995

balance the budget in 7 years regardless of the consequences,’’ then I am

concerned about what that means for

the economy, because it may be more

of a blow than the economy can handle.

I would have to have a movie made

this summer about the proceedings

that went on here titled ‘‘Honey, I

Shrank the Budget and I Blew Up the

Economy,’’ because that is not what

this is about. This is about building a

healthy economy.

First of all I want to respond very

quickly to the Medicare arguments,

pro and con, and then move into other

aspects of the budget.

I note with interest the statements

made about how there are no cuts in

Medicare, and I think that argument

has gone back and forth a lot. Let the

record show that it was last year that

this administration, the Clinton administration, brought forward a plan

for reforming Medicare in the context

of overall health care reform, and that

was almost universally disowned by

those on the other side. Now they say,

‘‘Well, we’ve got this great plan and we

want you to be involved.’’

We are saying it has to be done in the

context of overall health care reform.

It also has to be done in the context of

something else. If you are asking seniors to pay more out of pocket for restructuring the health care plan, then I

think it is not too much to ask that

that actually go toward Medicare, that

that actually go toward deficit reduction, but that it not go for a tax break

for the very wealthiest in our country.

It is ironic that the amount that

would come out of Medicare, roughly

$300 billion over 7 years, is almost the

amount that was voted by this House

or voted by the Members of the majority party for a tax break, 51 percent of

those benefits going to those earning

over $100,000 a year.

Incidentally, in West Virginia where

the bulk of the income level is $20,000

and below, that segment of the population would get only 4 percent of that

tax cut benefits, while those over

$100,000 got 51 percent. That is a clear

disparity.

It is interesting because in my town

meetings, 18 of them which I held

across the State during the last couple

of months, in my town meetings even

upper income people were saying ‘‘We

don’t need a tax cut, particularly one

that gives us a tax break. What we are

interested in is more deficit reduction

and more balancing the budget.’’

b 1445

So that is one of the main sticking

points on Medicare, do not go cutting

Medicare to give a tax break for the

upper income.

But let us talk now about the budget

and the economy.

The goal as I say is for a balanced

budget, but in the context of a healthy

economy. What is it that makes a

healthy economy? Growth makes a

healthy economy, and if you have two

businesses side by side and both of

them have a debt problem, they have

too much debt, and the United States

has too much debt, and they take steps

to cut that, where is it, Mr. Speaker,

you would want to invest, in the company that cuts everything across the

board regardless of how much business

it creates, or would you want to invest

in the company that is going to make

sensible cuts, but at the same time is

going to beef up those provisions by

bringing growth to that business and

help it to grow out of some of its problems?

I think we ought to put the debt of

the United States in context. We have

a debt problem, and I think it is looming as a serious problem; it is not a crisis. And let us look at some statistics.

First of all, the debt, that total

amount that the United States has

rung up, has increased dramatically in

the past 12 years. It has gone from

roughly $1 trillion, took about 200

years to get to about this level, $1 trillion, and in the last 12 to 15 years it

has now grown to $4.5 trillion. And I

know I am not in scale with my high

air chart, Mr. Speaker, but the debt is

somewhere around $4.5 trillion. That is

a lot of money obviously. But let us

put it in the context of history.

Following World War II this country’s debt was about 125 percent of its

gross domestic product. In other words,

everything this country did in a year’s

time in business and sales and what

not, the debt was about 125 percent. We

worked that debt down steadily over

the next four decades to roughly 35 percent of our gross domestic product for

1 year’s economy.

It has now gone up, yes, it is true, to

around 65 to 70 percent, but this is, incidentally, about the same level that

almost every other major industrialized nation is carrying of debt in relation to its gross domestic product. So

we have a problem and the trend line is

up and leveling off. But we do not have

a crisis. But we need to reverse that

trend.

Why do we need to reverse that

trend? The debt takes time to pay off.

But more importantly, it is the interest on the debt that we pay every year

that is growing. That is what is important.

Roughly the interest on the debt is

somewhere around $300 billion, this

year roughly 15 percent of our total

Federal budget. That is $300 billion

that is not going for education, it is

not going for defense, it is not going

for anything except to repay past consumption. So that needs to come down.

But let us bring it down in a reasonable

way.

The deficit is the yearly amount that

this Government spends over what it

takes in; if you take in this much and

you spend that much. Let us look at

the deficit in relation to our economy.

Three or four years ago this country’s

deficit was about 6 percent of its gross

domestic product. Because of the steps

taken in the 1993 budget plan, hotly

disputed, I might add, because of that

it came from 6 percent and it is on a

trend line to be cut in half, and it is on

course right now to be around 2.5 to 3

percent of our gross domestic product.

So, over a 5-year time the deficit in relation to our overall economy has been

cut in half. That is not good enough. It

has to keep going down, but we have to

acknowledge the progress that has

been made and it has been made in a

solid and stable way and incidently the

economy, despite the predictions of

those who opposed that program only 2

years ago, passed by one or two votes

as I recall here in the House, the economy instead of going in the tank as

was proposed has only grown instead.

Now, what does that mean for future

deficit reduction? My feeling is we need

to continue that glide path but that we

need to make sure that several things

are built in. First, that it is a gentle

glide path and not an abrupt one. Second, that is builds in growth. The reality is if you are talking about paying

off a debt of $4.5 trillion, if you are

talking about eliminating a deficit of

$170 billion this year, or $200 billion on

average, then you are talking about

the need to be able to grow and the

economy must grow, and you must

make sure the steps you take bring

growth and not retrenchment.

So that deficit is what needs to be focused on, so I would urge that instead

of a 7-year time plan with some pretty

draconian cuts that it be spread out to

10 years to 12 years. Why 10 to 12? Rule

of thumb. It took you 10, 12 years to

get into this predicament. I think it is

going to take logically 10 to 12 to get

out.

But I noticed most private sector

bankruptcy proceedings or chapter 11

proceedings, if you put forward a reasonable repayment plan for the creditors over a number of years, then everyone breathes a lot easier, the creditors loosen up, you are beginning to

pay off your debt in a logical way and

everybody is happy and that business

still continues to go on.

So, I am not wedded to a 7-year plan.

I am not wedded for another reason.

Here we get a bit, Mr. Speaker, here I

have been known to be able to cause

whole crowds’ eyes to glaze over when

I start explaining capital budgeting,

but let me try. All of us believe that

the family budget and a Federal budget

should be treated the same, that you

should balance. There is a difference.

And the family budget and the Federal

budget are much the same in that they

both must set priorities. Families sit

around the table every month and decide how much for utilities, how much

for food, how much for school, how

much for health care, and so on.

Families know something. Families

know they also have to borrow to grow.

That is why my wife and I have a mortgage on our house. We cannot afford to

pay for a house in 1 year. We have to

mortgage over 20 to 30 years. That is

why we buy a car on a payment plan.

We cannot afford to pay for a car in 1

year. We pay for it over several years.
May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4913

That is why I worked my way through

college and had to borrow to get

through college, and that is why my

children will probably see the same,

but we look at the borrowing for the

house, the car, and the education as a

necessary expense that has long-term

benefits and over time helps us grow. It

appreciates in value and adds to our

value.

So, families know that, and they do

that.

The Federal Government does not account for those long-term investments

that way. When you build a mile of

road, you build a Federal building, you

buy aircraft carriers, those things that

have long-term value, the Federal Government shows them being paid for in

that 1 year. It does not spread the cost

out over the lifetime of the asset. It

pays for it in that 1 year, so that in

turn balloons up what most businesses

and families know would be a much

lesser expense because they would

spread the cost out over the lifetime of

that asset. There is no capital budgeting. That is what it is called. There is

no capital budgeting in the Federal

budget.

There is in every State and city government, and business and family

budget. The State of West Virginia, for

instance, has a balanced budget, but

the State of West Virginia, as almost

every State with possibly the exception

of one State, the State of West Virginia and 48 other States at least all

borrow money for their highways and

in some cases for water, sewer, and

other long-term investments. The Federal Government is not able to show it

that way. So I would put this country

on a capital budget for those long-term

items.

But the family also does something

else. The family budget shows that

debt service. The Federal Government

borrows, but it does not know whether

it is borrowing a dollar for gasoline for

a Federal vehicle or a dollar for a mile

of road. That needs to change.

So, growth must be, must clearly be

built into this.

I would urge several things in preparing a budget. First of all, I would urge

that there be a longer phase-in period.

Second, I would suggest there be capital budgeting, that the Federal Government be able to invest and encourage investment just like every business, every State, every city, every

family does, and to have for those

items that are long-term you can borrow for those and show it as such for

those items that are day-to-day consumption, your payroll, materials,

those kinds of things you pay for them,

and you balance your budget for those.

Third is, I urge growth policies. My

concern about the budget that will be

on the floor next week is it discourages

growth;, it does not encourage it. If

you believe balancing the budget in

and of itself will bring you growth,

then fine, and you are happy as a hog

in slop, but the fact of the matter is

the statistics are pretty clear, it does

not. If you look at studies you find interestingly enough at times when we

have the closest to balanced budgets

our economy sometimes is in the worst

shape, and vice versa. Many are wringing their hands about the deficit today,

but they are not pointing out that the

stock market is at an all-time high,

that employment has been running

along at a fairly consistent pace, and

the Federal Reserve has clamped down

seven times already on the economy in

the past year trying to restrain inflation because they will felt the economy

was growing too fast. So I think there

is a real need to recognize growth policies.

I would urge under that heading

there are several programs not to be

cut that are proposed to be cut. Student loans. The present proposal is to

cut the student loan program $33 billion over 7 years. I do not know about

others in the Chamber. I think I do,

but I know that many of us got our

education through student loan programs. And indeed, the best investment

that the Federal Government can make

is to make sure that someone gets a

higher education. If someone graduates

from college, the Department of Labor

estimates their income today by graduating from college is 60 percent higher

over their lifetime than simply graduating from high school. That incidentally has changed in the last 10 years

from being just 30 percent higher to

doubling, so the power of a college education or higher education is there.

Incidentally, speaking from the most

businesslike Federal Government

standpoint, that is good news for the

Federal Government, because that

means they pay more taxes. It is good

news for the economy because they are

more active in the economy, generating more revenue and so on.

The person who goes to college today

may be the employer, the business creator, the business grower of tomorrow.

Please leave student loans alone.

I would leave intact other growth

programs. The Economic Development

Administration, almost every industrial park probably in our country, certainly in my State, has EDA money in

it. That is what provides the linchpin

that brings together the deal, the private sector, it provides the water, the

sewer, sometimes the shell building,

technical feasibility studies. We just

broke ground on a major development

in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. It is estimated that the EDA

grant which I believe was $2 million

will generate 357 jobs. I costed that

out. In addition to the other Federal

grants involved it was around $7,883 per

job created. The estimated income

those workers will be making, that will

be repaid to the Federal Government in

4 years. Real estate developers will tell

you if they can get their money back

in 4 years, that is a heck of a great investment, and now those people will be

generating money for the economy and

also paying taxes for 40 years after

that.

So whether it is the Economic Development Administration, the Appalachian Regional Commission, so many of

the other important growth-producing

infrastructure creating entities, I

would urge that those be retained.

We just had a debate on the floor

today about, and unfortunately it

passed, cutting $700 million from the

State revolving fund. What does that

mean, Mr. Speaker? That is the money

that goes to build water and sewer

projects for all of our communities;

$100 billion need out there. This Government comes up with at best $2 billion a year, and that just got cut. It

does not make any sense to me, because water and sewer is how we grow.

The third area is transportation, Mr.

Speaker. I would hope that the money

not be cut for the highway trust fund

and the aviation trust fund. We need to

be growing roads and improving our

roads and our infrastructure and our

mass transit, not retrenching. There is

a reason Mr. Speaker, people talk

about the economic miracle of Japan;

there are a lot of reasons. One of them

is this: Japan has half the economy of

the United States or roughly 60 percent

of the economy, half the population,

and yet spends more in real dollars

than the United States does in its infrastructure, and so clearly we can

learn from that.

I would support targeted tax cuts,

Mr. Speaker, tax cuts that actually go

to create growth, not tax cuts handed

out just to hand out tax cuts, because

it is a great bumper sticker, but tax

cuts that go to create growth, limited

and targeted capital gains cuts, targeted investment tax credits that actually provide incentives for small businesses to buy the equipment that helps

them to expand their capacity and productivity.

Targeted tax cuts that encourage the

development of municipal and private

water and sewer systems and those

other areas that help us grow. Many of

those incidentally were removed in the

1986 tax act. I think it is time to revisit

that. So there is much that can be done

for growth, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I am getting

close to the end, let me say that it is a

laudable effort that all make to cut the

Federal deficit. That has to be done. As

I mentioned, I do not make light of the

deficit, because what the deficit represents is the interest that is being

paid on the national debt.

b 1500

And that debt is too high, and the interest is too high, and it robs us of

other areas, if you are going to spend

money that could be better spent. Not

a dollar of that goes to education or

goes to any other useful application.

So I do not quarrel with the need to

reduce the deficit. I do quarrel with the

idea that you can willy-nilly cut your

way to Nirvana, that you can willynilly cut your way to a balanced budget, and particularly doing it in 7 years,

particularly doing it with the type of
H 4914 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 12, 1995

arcane and antiquated and ineffective

accounting system that the Federal

Government has.

It is like we are trying to play a

game by rules that are four or five decades old, and we know they are not any

good, and we know they are artificial,

and we know they do not produce the

most logical outcome, but, by golly,

they are the rules, those are the rules

we are going to play by even if it has a

bad outcome.

So, cutting your way completely to a

balanced budget, particularly in 7

years, I believe can create incredible

problems for the economy. And so I

would urge that growth be an important initiative in that.

I don’t think you reach growth by

cutting the very programs that create

growth, and so I hope that there will be

time eventually to look at those

growth areas and to be putting a

growth agenda forward.

I understand this budget is going to

pass next week, I guess, on the floor of

this House. The votes are here. It will

be muscled through. It will pass.

But my thought, though, is that after

it passes, then we can have some

calmer reflection in the country as

well as this Congress, and that we can

be talking about a true growth initiative that moves this country forward.

You get balanced budgets by having a

strong economy, and so as we work towards that balanced budget goal, I

think at the same time we have to recognize what the ultimate goal is, and

that is the strength of this economy.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I do want to

address one concern that has been

raised. Some have said, ‘‘Where is your

alternative, Democrats? Where is your

alternative?’’ ‘‘We have a budget we

just reported out of the Committee on

the Budget,’’ say the Republican leadership, ‘‘and where is the Democratic

alternative?’’

Ladies and gentleman, the Democrats have been putting their alternative out there on the line. I get partisan at this point, Mr. speaker. The

Democrats have been putting their alternative out on the line for the past

few years. We are the ones who passed

without any help from the other party,

passed a deficit reduction plan that reduced the deficit $500 billion over 5

years, took the deficit from being almost 6 percent of gross domestic product to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product in 5 years. We are the

party that put out a comprehensive

health care plan that last year was attacked by this side because it restricted choice, the freedom-to-choose

provider. It had too much managed

care. This year they come and say the

greatest thing since sliced bread is

managed care. That is how they would

seek to reduce the deficit.

I would say Democrats have been

there. Incidentally, we are going to

continue to be there. I am going to be

putting forth my growth agenda. I am

going to be putting forward my balanced-budget alternatives. Others of us

are working to put these forward. My

hope is eventually this center aisle can

be replaced by people working on both

sides of it, working together, crossing

over to work for a true growth agenda

and to work for what I know everyone

in this Chamber agrees on and across

the country, the need for policies that

truly put this country on the road to a

healthy economy, in so doing, a balanced budget as well.

I also think it is important that

these special orders at the end of the

day following legislative business be

taken and be recognized for what they

are, not addresses to the Congress per

se, but addresses to more fully expound

the thoughts each Member has and to

try and shape the policy discussion,

very important policy discussion that

is taking place here over the next couple of weeks.

By unanimous consent, permission to

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

faddress the House, following the legislative program and any special orders

heretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members to revise and

extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. GEPHARDT, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. OWENS, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. DEFAZIO, for 5 minutes, today.

Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. LIPINSKI, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. UNDERWOOD, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. PALLONE, for 60 minutes, today.

Mr. WISE, for 60 minutes, today.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. KINGSTON) to revise and

extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mrs. ROUKEMA, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. KINGSTON, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Member (at the request of Mr. PALLONE) to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. POSHARD

f, for 5 minutes, today.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to

revise and extend remarks was granted

to:

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. PALLONE) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mr. BONIOR.

Ms. WOOLSEY in two instances.

Mr. ENGEL in two instances.

Mr. FOGLIETTA.

Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey.

Mr. BARCIA.

Mr. DOOLEY in two instances.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. KINGSTON) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mr. GANSKE.

Mr. FOLEY.

Mr. RAMSTAD.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER.

Mr. HOKE in two instances.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WISE) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky.

Mrs. ROUKEMA.

Mr. KIM.

Mr. DORNAN.

Mr. POSHARD.

Mr. REGULA.

Mr. CAMP.

Mr. SANDERS.

Mr. KANJORSKI

fin two instances.

SENATE BILL REFERRED

A bill of the Senate of the following

title was taken from the Speaker’s

table and, under the rule, referred as

follows:

S. 510. An act to extend the authorization

for certain programs under the Native American Programs Act of 1974, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Economic and

Educational Opportunities.

ADJOURNMENT

fMr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I move that

the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o’clock and 4 minutes p.m.),

under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 15, 1995, at

10:30 a.m.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,

fETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from

the Speaker’s table and referred as follows:

864. A letter from the Deputy Secretary of

Defense, transmitting a report and recommendations of the task force on discrimination and sexual harassment dated May

1995, Volume I, pursuant to Public Law 103–

337, section 532; to the Committee on National Security.

865. A letter from the Secretary of Defense,

transmitting certification that the detail of

58 DOD personnel to other Federal agencies,

under the DOD Counterdrug Detail Program,

are in the national security interest of the

United States, pursuant to Public Law 103–

337, section 1011; to the Committee on National Security.

866. A letter from the Director, Defense Security Assistance Agency, transmitting notification concerning the accession of Denmark to the project to establish an organization for CALS within NATO (Transmittal

No. 6–95), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the

Committee on International Relations.

867. A letter from the Director, Defense Security Assistance Agency, transmitting notification concerning a cooperative counterterrorism research and development effort

with Canada (Transmittal No. 7–95), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the Committee on

International Relations.

868. A letter from the Assistant Secretary

for Legislative Affairs, Department of State,

transmitting notification of a proposed license for the export of major defense equipment and services sold commercially to the

United States Arab Emirates (Transmittal

No. DTC–25–95), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c);

to the Committee on International Relations.

869. A letter from the Assistant Secretary

for Legislative Affairs, Department of State,