May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5603

third most important person in this entire country.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I just want to end

this by saying, the gentleman that preceded us in this well was talking about

many of our veterans. It is Memorial

Day that we are breaking for. I must

say they gave their lives for this wonderful, great Government and not for

the best Government money can buy.

All we want to make sure is that we

are not finding a new way for people to

be able to buy this Government.

We get frustrated with this Government, sometimes this Government

makes us absolutely nuts, but I must

say overall I will take this Government

against any other one in the world. I

am going to do everything I can to

make sure everybody has a fair chance,

everybody has a fair shot, and that we

do not surrender to new clever ways

that lobbyists find to get their time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now going to turn

the podium over to my distinguished

colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. SKAGGS].

I wish everyone also a happy Memorial Day.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

BURTON of Indiana). The gentleman

from Colorado may control the balance

of the hour designated by the leadership.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OVERSIGHT ACT

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to

join Mr. SCHIFF, my colleagues from

New Mexico and a former district attorney, in introducing a bill to safeguard our constitutional rights as we

fight terrorism.

The tragic bombings in Oklahoma

City, 2 years earlier in New York City,

awakened all of us to the fact that

America is not immune to terrrorist

acts. This has quite appropriately

prompted the President and many

Members of Congress to suggest additional steps to prevent terrorism and

to make punishment for terrorist acts

swifter and more certain. It is essential

for Congress to see that we are doing

all we should do to prevent the horror

and tragedy of another Oklahoma City.

But talk about stepped-up

counterterrorism efforts has also

raised among the public the concern

that law enforcement agencies may

slip over proper constitutional boundaries in combating terrorism, that

their actions to keep us safe may sometimes collide with the Constitution’s

wise restraints that keep us free.

The bill we are introducing today,

the Constitutional Rights Oversight

Act, responds to these concerns.

The bill would establish a top-level

inspector general for counterterrorism

activities to head a new independent

office, to be responsible for ensuring

that Federal counterterrorism activities comply with constitutional standards.

The most important feature of the

new inspector general will be the crosscutting scope of the authority of this

office. Unlike the existing inspectors

general of various departments, this

new IG will have oversight authority

for many different agencies. The new

IG will review the counterterrorism activities of agencies as diverse as the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

In short, this new inspector general

will have the authority not simply to

review the actions of a Department,

but to watch the counterterrorism activities of all agencies, to assure their

adherence to the Constitution and

their full respect for constitutional

rights.

Besides the power to review, the new

inspector general would have the power

to act, in two significant ways.

First, agencies would be required to

keep this new inspector general informed of requests for judicial or administrative authorization for searches

wiretaps, and similar surveillance activities. The new inspector general

would be kept similarly informed

about deportation actions related to

the right against terrorism.

In connection with all these proceedings, the new inspector general could

make suggestions, or oppose the requested authorizations, to the extent

appropriate in order to protect constitutional rights.

Second, the new IG would receive

public complaints about alleged or potential violations of constitutional

rights. Upon receiving these complaints, the IG could require relevant

agencies to respond.

Finally, the new IG will be responsible for submitting periodic reports to

the President and the Congress concerning the observance of constitutional requirements, and the protection of constitutional rights, in connection with Federal counterterrorism

activities, and to make suggestions for

improvements.

But just as important as these particular powers I think will be the restraining effect of the mere existence

of this new IG. The requirements for

immediate constitutional accountability that the office would impose on

counterterrorism, investigations

should serve to deter any tendency a

Government official might have to be

casual about constitutional safeguards.

Mr. Speaker, the American public

has a very real stake in being protected

from terrorism. It also has a high stake

in seeing that the Government doesn’t

cut constitutional corner in providing

that protection. We do not need to

trade our constitutionally protected

rights, including the rights to privacy,

free assembly, and free speech, for enhanced protection from terrorists. If

we should make that mistake, terrorism will have achieved a victory.

As with all other law enforcement efforts in our country, in fighting terrorism the Government must balance the

need for security with the rights of the

people. Sadly, our history provides several examples of the Federal Government compromising basic constitutional rights to thwart perceived national security threats.

The FBI’s clandestine COINTELPRO

Program provides but one stark example of such governmental arrogance. In

the name of national security, then-Director J. Edgar Hoover presiding over a

program of unauthorized surveillance

and harassment of those who legitimately protested government policies.

Given this history, there are serious

concerns in the country about giving

expanded investigative powers to Federal authorities.

We are introducing the Constitutional Rights Oversight Act to help ensure that protection of civil liberties is

part of the counterterrorism debate.

The House should consider this measure as part of any counterterrorism

legislation that comes to the floor. By

its enactment, Congress can demonstrate our commitment to protecting both public safety and personal

freedom and will provide the right response to the public’s fears both of violence and of Government abuse of civil

rights. A nation which so reveres its

constitution deserves no less from its

Government.

MEDICARE AND THE FEDERAL

fBUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS]

is recognized for 20 minutes.

RECOGNIZING OUR VETERANS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Speaker. I

know the Speaker has appointments he

has to make. I appreciate his willingness to stay and be here for these special orders, and also to thank those

that are working on behalf of the

House so that we have this opportunity.

I do not often seek the opportunity

to address the House in a special order,

but I do so today to talk about our

Federal budget and what we as the

Budget Committee have done to try to

get our financial house in order.

But I first want to say that as I listened to the gentleman from California

[Mr. DORNAN] in talking about the

atrocities that took place with Americans under captivity by the Japanese

during World War II, I just could not

help but think how important it is that

that story be told, as gruesome as it is,

and that the families of those men

know that we will not be silenced in

making sure that the truth be told.

When I think of Memorial Day and

the men and women who gave their life

to this great country, I know, as someone who never served in the armed

forces, that when I look at the flag behind me, that the flag means a great

deal to me obviously as a Member of

Congress and as an American citizen.

But to someone who fought in battle,

the American flag means something

more than we could ever imagine.
H 5604 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

When they think of the American flag,

they think of the soldiers, their

friends, their comrades, their brothers

who died in battle. They think of the

people, the families they contacted to

let them know about how their brother

or sister or son or grandson died in battle.

And when I think of Memorial Day,

and when I think of how blessed we are

as American citizens for their ultimate

sacrifice, I also think of the families. I

think of the mothers who held their

sons, who never will be able to hold

their sons again. I think of the fathers

that went and saw their sons or their

daughters playing baseball or go to a

dance, or be there when their children

were sad and needed a reassuring arm,

and I think of what those parents have

to live with.

I also think of the brothers and sisters who lost their brothers or sisters

and the memories that they have. I

think of the precious children who

were denied the opportunity to have

their father or their mother, particularly their fathers in the case of World

War II, come to their baseball games,

come to their schools, see them get

married.

So as a Member of Congress, I just

count my blessings every day, absolutely every day, for the opportunity I

have to serve here.

When I listened to the debate that

was taking place and the comment

made by the Speaker and the ruling

made by the Speaker, I thought of an

experience that happened to me a bit

earlier when I brought a complaint

against a chairman of a committee

after he had been indicted, and I wanted to do just what these two Members

had done. I wanted to share my complaint and my letter, and I was ruled

out of order.

I did not like it at the time, but I

began to think about it and I began to

realize, first, the rule that you invoked, Mr. Speaker, has existed for

over 70 years. And part of the reason

for that rule is that in this Chamber it

is important that a Member who is

being accused of something have the

opportunity to be present and to defend

themselves.

b 1400

I also realize that you did not make

up a new ruling, you just enforced a

ruling that was enforced on me under

Democrats, a rule that was in their

rules for as long as we can remember

and we just continued their rule.

So, as disappointed as I was when I

was not able to submit my letter, I realize that in this Chamber we work

with each other, we deal with each

other and we have to be fair to each

other. There is nothing to prevent me,

as I ultimately did, to just speak directly to the public but not in this

Chamber.

With regard to what we are trying to

do in this Chamber, last year in an

election we established what we

thought would be a very important dialogue with the American people, we established a concept that said we were

going to make a contract with the

American people, and we had 8 things

that we wanted to do on opening day

and we had 10 things that we wanted to

do during the course of the first 100

days.

What was memorable about that for

me was when I was up for reelection

and I met with an editorial board they

said how could you have signed such a

document, and the question I answered

this way by asking a question, I asked:

What do you think of what the majority party, then the Democrats, were

going to do on the opening day; what

did you think about the 10 things they

were going to do in the first 100 days;

what did you think about their plan

and their contract with the American

people? And I just waited for the answer. Obviously there was not a contract with the American public, there

was no sense of what they wanted to do

on the first day, the 8 reforms we wanted to do and the 10 major pieces of legislation in the first 100 days. And I

think I take extraordinarily pride in

the fact that when we were up for election as the minority party we came

forward with a plan, and it did not

criticize Democrats, it did not criticize

the President, we said we want to

change this place. We want to downsize

Government, we want to have open

rules, we want to pass legislation

which I helped author saying Congress

should abide by the same laws that we

impose on the private sector. The first

bill that passed that Chamber, signed

by the President, it was bipartisan. But

we came forward with a plan, and one

of the parts to that plan was a balanced budget amendment.

Over 300 Members voted for a balanced budget amendment. But last

week we did something more important. We voted to balance the budget,

and to my left I have a chart which describes what we intend to do and what

we will be doing. The red line is the

spending that seems to go parallel with

the bottom line which is revenues; they

never meet. As long as I have been a

Member of Congress we have had deficits. In fact, when I was a State legislator and I watched Congress in the

State legislature, we have to balance

our budgets, but in Congress we have

not. And when I was in the State legislature I kept waiting for Congress to

get its financial House in order. Thirteen years I waited and then I had an

opportunity to serve in Congress, and I

worked and waited for an opportunity

to finally vote on a budget that would

get us balanced. And that is what we

do. We slowed the growth in spending;

spending still goes up on the average in

the aggregate and it ultimately meets

the growth of revenues in the 7th year.

We are going to spend more money

each year on the aggregate in our Government. We are just slowing the

growth, and what we are trying to do is

end deficit spending. There are some

young people in this audience who may

not know that if we do not succeed in

slowing the growth in spending, by the

time the young people are adults they

will be paying 70 percent of every dollar they earn in taxes to the Federal

Government to help pay for the debt

that is taking place today. And what is

starting to happen in our dialog is we

are having the elderly say you cannot

do this, and we have the young who are

not aware of what we need to do, and

hopefully during the course of the next

few months we will have an open dialog, young and old, talking about what

we need to do. We need to slow the

growth in revenue, and that is what we

are going to do and that is what we

voted to do last week.

The second chart shows spending in

three ways. The yellow is the national

debt, the interest that we pay each

year on the national debt. we pay $235

billion of interest payments on the national debt. That could go for housing,

it could go for our military, it could go

for our schools, it could go for a whole

host of other things if past generations

had not deficit spent, but they have.

We have just such a large debt that our

interest is now 15.4 percent of our

budget.

Only about a third of our budget is

domestic spending and defense spending, what we call discretionary spending. There is foreign aid in here. I vote

on one-third of the budget as a Member

of Congress; as a Member of Congress I

do not vote on anything over here in

the blue. All of that is entitlement.

These are Social Security, Medicare,

Medicaid and other entitlements, food

stamps, agricultural subsidies. They

are an automatic pilot, they just keep

happening and happening and happening.

But I vote on this, what is in the

pink, what is discretionary spending,

and what we are looking to do is actually have real cuts in discretionary

spending. We are going to try to slow

the growth of entitlements but still

allow entitlements to grow, and we are

going to try to keep down the interest

payments that we are making every

year.

Half of the budget is on automatic

pilot.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman

fro Michigan [Mr. EHLERS].

Mr. EHLERS. I would like to thank

the gentleman for yielding, and I rise

to comment on the charts and to compliment the gentleman for what he has

done.

I had two town meetings last weekend and I used charts similar to those

the gentleman is using, and I deeply

appreciate the work the gentleman has

put into this. I have found that in my

town meetings by the use of the charts

the gentleman is displaying the public

was fully understanding of the problems that we are trying to address, recognized the importance of them, and

are able to get past all of the rhetoric

they have heard from those who are

trying to make political hay out of the
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5605

problems of Medicare and the problems

of balancing the budget.

I simply want to commend the gentleman and I hope many people hear

his message, and I certainly thank the

gentleman for preparing these charts,

and I find them a valuable educational

tool.

Mr. SHAYS. That was a nice treat,

and I thank the gentleman from Michigan and thank him for his work in trying to get this story out. The bottom

line is what we want to do is slow the

growth in Government spending and

get our financial house in order so future generations will not have so much

debt.

In particular, what I have singled out

as a focus is the amount of money we

spend on Medicare and Medicaid. You

cannot see it very easily, but it

amounts to about 17 percent of our entire Federal budget. It is equal to all

domestic spending. Medicare and Medicaid are equal to everything we spend

in the legislative branch, everything

we spend in the judicial branch, everything we spend in the executive branch

under the President of the United

States, all the various departments and

agencies, all of their grants are equal

to 16.7 percent or $256 billion. Medicare

and Medicaid are greater than that

amount. The difference is Medicare and

Medicaid are growing at alarming rates

and we need to find a way to slow that

growth.

Defense spending is equal basically to

discretionary spending. But a third of

the budget is what we vote on in the

House.

Some people say to us well, why did

not Gramm-Rudman make a difference? The reason is Gramm-Rudman

only focused in on the pink part of that

pie, only on discretionary spending. It

did not focus at all on entitlements.

What we have done in defense spending is to have a basic level playing

field. It is not going to go up; it is not

basically going to go down. Discretionary domestic spending is going to

go down, and foreign aid is going to go

down.

Then we come to Medicaid. Medicaid

is health care for the poor. It is also

health care for poor elderly as it relates to nursing care, and it is going

up. Medicaid spending is going to go up

by about 36 percent in the next 7 years.

We are not cutting Medicaid; we are allowing it to grow.

Some Members of Congress say we

are cutting Medicaid and/or we are cutting Medicare. We are cutting them if

you use this definition, if it costs $100

million to run a program this year and

the next year to run the same program

with the same level of service, not

changing the program, it costs $105

million and we appropriate $103 million, in my home, in business, that is a

$3 million increase.

Congress, the White House, the press

in Washington, and only in Washington, they call that a $2 billion cut.

Medicare is going to go up by 36 percent in the next 7 years. We are going

to spend $324 billion more in the next 7

years than we spent in the last 7 years.

Now admittedly we are not going to

allow it to grow as quickly, but the important point, when you look at this, is

to recognize that Medicare is going to

go up, Medicaid is going to go up in

terms of what we will spend in the next

7 years by 36 percent more than the

growth in the population.

What is happening to Medicare? Medicare is actually having an extraordinary challenge facing us. The challenge that faces us with Medicare, and

it is Medicare part A, that is Medicare

that goes for hospitals, Medicare part

B is what goes for health care services,

Medicare part A is starting to go bankrupt next year. In other words it is

going to take in less money than it

spends out, but it still has money in

the trust fund. Ultimately in 7 years

Medicare part A goes bankrupt, it literally runs out of money. In other

words, in the seventh year there will be

a $7 billion deficit in the trust fund.

The trust fund will have run out of

money.

What we are looking to do with Medicare is to save it. We are looking to improve the service. We are looking to

preserve Medicare. We are looking to

save it. And this is not a report done by

Republicans or Democrats in Congress,

this is a report given to us by the

trustees of the Medicare system. It is

going bankrupt unless we save it, and

that is what our objective is.

The way we save it is to slow the

growth in Medicare, by slowing the

growth in Medicare so that it does not

grow at over 10 percent a year, but

grows approximately 5 percent a year.

If we allow Medicare to grow each

year, in other words spend more, not

cut, grow, and spend more, we are

going to allow it to grow by 45 percent

in the next 7 years. Only in Washington

is a growth in spending of 45 percent

called a cut, only in Washington.

And unfortunately we are hearing

people saying we want to cut Medicare.

No, we want it to grow; we want it to

grow at 45 percent. We just want to

make sure when it grows it does not

bankrupt the rest of the country. So it

will go from $178 to $259 billion.

What that means is that we want to

spend $659 billion more in the next 7

years than we spent in the last 7 years.

We want to spend that amount of

money.

What will we spend, almost $1.6 trillion as opposed to $925 billion in the

past 7 years.

I think the most important statistic

though is the one that shows what we

do per beneficiary. We want to spend

$4,116 per beneficiary instead of $6,000

and have it grow to $6,361 in the seventh year. We are going to spend 45

percent more in Medicare. We are

going to allow it to grow, and the increase per beneficiary is 32 percent.

Only in Washington would an increase

per beneficiary of 32 percent, 32.1 percent be called a cut, only in Washington. I do not know anywhere else where

when you spend even more money you

call it a cut. We are going to spend 45

percent more total in Medicare and 32

percent more in the next 7 years per

beneficiary.

Which gets me to the last point that

I want to make. If we do not control

the growth in Medicare and Medicaid,

we are doomed. We are already to balance the budget in the next 7 years

going to see foreign aid go down 5.4

percent more a year. We are already

going to see domestic discretionary

spending go down 1.6 percent a year,

that is a cut, that is a cut any way you

look at it. We are going to spend less

dollars in the next year. Defense spending goes up one-half percent, and there

are some, and I am one, who would like

it not to be as high. The challenge we

have in defense spending is we are $150

billion oversubscribed in defense. We

have to find a way to reduce defense

spending $150 billion in the next 7 years

just to stay within this number. And

how do we get oversubscribed? Because

Congress and the White House kept

pushing off the procurement of certain

defense systems to the sixth year and

we were working on 5-year budgets so

the full cost of these programs never

truly showed up.

We are going to have a difficult time

staying within this number, only because we are oversubscribed in defense.

But what is happening in Social Security? It is going up 5.1 percent. What

is happening in Medicare? It is going

up 5.5 percent. What is happening in

the Medicaid? It is going to go up 4.5

percent a year? What is happening in

other elements? They are going to go

up 3.9 percent.

Recognize this is the growth in

spending and this is half of the Federal

budget. It is going to grow. Sadly, the

interest payments we make are going

to go up about 1 percent a year, but before we passed our budget they were

going to go up 5 percent a year.

So we have slowed the growth of interest payments, we have slowed the

growth of defense, we are actually

making real cuts in foreign aid and domestic spending.

b 1415

And I have to say this in conclusion

about domestic spending, there are

some cuts I do not want to make in domestic spending. I mean, there probably is not any Member of Congress

who likes every part of our budget, but

if we take the logic, ‘‘I do not like 10

percent of the budget, I am voting

against it,’’ that is just going to duplicate what has happened during the last

10 years. We can always find something

we do not like in the budget.

What do I like in this budget? I like

the fact that we are getting a handle

on Government spending. I like the

fact that we are slowing the growth of

entitlement programs. I like the fact

that we are saving Medicare from

bankruptcy. I like the fact that for the

first time in my 20 years in public life

I got to vote for a budget that gets us

balanced.
H 5606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

Admittedly, it is going to take us 7

years, but we are doing it, and I am

proud to be part of that effort.

I will just conclude by saying ultimately what we do is going to have to

be worked out with the President of

the United States. He has to sign this

legislation. I am hopeful he will finally

weigh in on trying to find ways to save

Medicare. I do not mean that sarcastically. I just mean it as openly as I can,

because right now there is no plan

coming out of the administration. But

ultimately we need to pass a budget

that gets us balanced in the next 7

years. We need to do it for the people

who are in this country today, and we

need to do it for our children and for

our children’s children, and for our

children’s children’s children.

We have simply got to wake up and

do it, and in the process of our plan, we

are going to spend more on health care

for the elderly, more on health care for

the poor. We are going to spend more

on some of our entitlement programs,

But we are going to reduce spending in

a whole host of areas.

Farmers are going to feel the reductions. People in urban areas are going

to feel the reductions. People in rural

areas are going to feel the reductions.

We are all going to be part of this effort. We are going to save this country.

We are going to save this country so it

can be the great Nation it has been for

so long.

And, Mr. Speaker, I really thank

your kindness in staying. I know you

needed to go. I appreciate the time you

have afforded me.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

AGENTS OF INFLUENCE

fBURTON of Indiana). Under a previous

order of the House, the gentlewoman

from Ohio [Ms. KAPTUR] is recognized

for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Japanese

auto companies enjoy a 25-percent

share of our American automotive

market. By contrast, our auto firms

have only a 1.5-percent share of Japan’s

market. In fact, all foreign automotive

companies, including the European, the

Asian, only have a 4-percent, 4-percent

share of Japan’s market.

This is because of the insurmountable, unfair trade barriers Japan erects

to protect its home market from any

kind of foreign import that would really give competition to Japan’s home

market suppliers.

What does that mean to our country?

It means that last year we, again, for

the 10th time in this past decade had a

$66 billion trade deficit with Japan, and

over half of it in the automotive arena.

For each billion dollars of deficit, that

translates into 20,000 more jobs we

could have right here at home.

In fact, when you think about it, if

we could have auto trade equity with

Japan, we could build 100 more companies in this country each employing

5,000 people in an industry that pays its

people a living wage.

America also fails to stand tall in the

ongoing United States-Japan trade

standoff because of the influence exercised by lobbyists here in this city by

Japanese industry throughout the corridors of power. What do I mean? This

past week, the Washington Post revealed that one of our most prominent

and influential political writers and

columnists and broadcasters, George

Will, that we have all seen on television, in the newspapers is married to

a lobbyist for foreign interests who

earns almost $200,000 a year working

for, are you ready for this, Japan’s

automobile manufacturers’ association, the chief lobbying group for Japan’s interest in this country and

around the world.

Mr. Will has been writing columns

and has been on television fulminating

against the Clinton administration’s

actions against Japan’s automakers,

but he fails to mention that his wife’s

lucrative affiliation with these companies is providing very adequate income

for his family. Astoundingly, when this

connection was revealed, his response

to this conflict of interest is, ‘‘Well,

it’s just too silly.’’ That is what he is

quoted in this article as saying.

The article says his wife’s firm is

paid $200 an hour to deal with reporters, to follow legislation, to place advertising, issue press releases and draft

articles for newspapers with such titles

as ‘‘Selling Cars this Japan: It Isn’t

About Access’’ or ‘‘Fixing the Outcome

of Trade with Japan is a Dangerous

Way to do Business,’’ castigating the

approach that the Government of the

United States is taking on behalf of the

people of the United States.

The article says her firm also sought

to arrange for the industries, Japan’s

industries’ top Washington lobbyists to

meet, guess who, the Chicago Tribune

editorial board, she tried to place an

opinion piece in the Washington Times,

and drafted letters to the New York

Times and Detroit Free Press.

What does Mr. Will say about all

this? He says, ‘‘Well, to me, it is beyond boring. I don’t understand the

whole mentality.’’

Well, as one Member of Congress, I do

not think it is silly. I do not think it is

boring. I understand what influencing

opinion is all about. I think it is a

question of agents of influence who operate in ways that influence our press,

press who are supposed to be objective

and factual, and as one professor says

in this article who is an associate dean

of Columbia University’s Journalism

School, he says, the same kind of conflict questions that apply here also

apply to extended families. The fact

Mr. Will does not see a problem shows

he just does not get it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Clinton administration to hang tough for America and the American people.

By unanimous consent, leave of abLEAVE OF ABSENCE

fsence was granted to:

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas (at the request of Mr. ARMEY) for May 23, 24, and

25, on account of illness.

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

Mr. HOKE, for 5 minutes, today.

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

extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. OWENS, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. MARTINEZ, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. LAFALCE, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Member (at his own

request) to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. RAMSTAD, for 5 minutes, today.

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

Mr. FATTAH, for 5 minutes, today.

Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today, at

her own request.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move

ADJOURNMENT

fthat the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

SHAYS). Pursuant to the provisions of

House Concurrent Resolution 72, 104th

Congress, the House stands adjourned

until noon on Tuesday, June 6, 1995.

Thereupon, at 2 o’clock and 22 minutes p.m., pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 72, the House adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 1995, at

12 noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,

fETC.

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

the Speaker’s table and referred as follows:

911. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of Defense, transmitting a draft of

proposed legislation to repeal various reporting requirements of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on National Security.

912. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of Defense, transmitting a draft of

proposed legislation to amend chapter 47 and

49 of title 10, United States Code, and chapter 15 of title 37, United States Code, to improve the quality and efficiency of the military justice system; to the Committee on

National Security.

913. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the annual report on the operations of the Exchange Stabilization Fund [ESF] for fiscal

year 1994, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5302(c)(2); to

the Committee on Banking and Financial

Services.