May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5315

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our Republican colleagues rescinded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.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presifdent of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin

Thomas, one of his secretaries.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1158,

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

fAPPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER

ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS,

FISCAL YEAR 1995

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON] the chairman of

the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wanted to respond to the previous speaker.

All this discussion about a lock box

and an agreement, the agreement was

oral. There was no mention in the discussions with respect to future savings.

The past savings and current savings

are in there in the Byrd amendment,

which was passed in the Senate and

agreed to in the conference. So that entire issue is by the boards. There is no

savings going to tax cuts.

The Byrd amendment in the conference agreement makes sure that

that is the case.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

1 minute to the gentlewoman from

California [Ms. PELOSI].

Ms. PELOSI. I wanted to make sure I

heard the chairman of the Committee

on Appropriations correctly. He said

that was not an agreement; it was an

oral agreement. Are we to conclude

from that that an agreement, an oral

agreement with the Republicans is not

worth the paper it is written on?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman

from Louisiana.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. There was no

paper. When I engaged in negotiations

with the gentleman from Oklahoma

[Mr. BREWSTER], there was no mention

of paper. We talked about saving of

past efforts and current efforts. There

was never any mention of future projected savings or future offsets.

Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman is saying the savings in the bill will not go

for deficit reduction?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am saying the

Byrd amendment covers exactly word

for word the agreement that was made.

The gentlewoman fully knows that.

Ms. PELOSI. No, I do not.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY], the ranking minority member of the committee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply

want to say that CBO has no trouble

figuring out what the Brewster language meant. Because the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the

Brewster lockbox would result in $66.5

billion in deficit reduction over 5

years.

The deficit reduction in this conference report is $15.48 billion. So it

seems to me that the CBO, which is the

neutral umpire which is supposed to

keep all of us honest around here, understood what the Brewster amendment did. The Brewster amendment

tried to dedicate all savings in the immediate year and out years for deficit

reduction.

The conference report comes back

and only dedicates $15 billion.

Now the chairman of the committee

says, ‘‘Oh, but that was the Byrd language.’’ Let me make clear, Senator

BYRD and I are in full agreement. Neither one of us wants to see these savings used to provide tax cuts for rich

people. The difference is that Senator

BYRD is in the other body, and the

other body has a budget resolution

that does not even contemplate using

any of these savings for tax reduction.

They contemplate using them all for

deficit reduction, and so they never

even dreamed that these funds would

be used for a tax cut rather than for

deficit reduction.

So do not try to say that the language in the conference report meets

the test of the Brewster amendment. It

does not.

CBO indicates the Brewster amendment would save $66 billion. This conference report only provides $15.48 billion for deficit reduction and makes

available the rest for tax cuts.

Four hundred and four people in this

institution voted not to do that.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VENTO].

(Mr. VENTO asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

opposition to the rule. We would not

need this rule if we followed the rules

of the House.

The fact of the matter is, besides

being a bad bill in cutting youth employment and education programs and

housing, this bill also puts our national

forests up for sale. This bill, which left

the House as a bad bill with the forest

provision, mandates these cuts. It puts
H 5316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

a fire sale, of course, on our national

forests. It goes into wilderness study

areas. In fact, 40 Members of the House

signed letters to the President asking

for a veto because this bill destroys not

only our national legacy but our children’s national legacy.

This particular provision adds to the

deficit, not cuts it.

There is a place, obviously, for deficit timber sales, but it is not in a bill

that is a rescission bill, not a bill that

destroys our national forests, that disregards forest health. In fact, our forests are more healthy than they have

ever been. That is because we have

been investing in watersheds and a variety of other projects. This flies in the

face of science, flies in the face of good

sound practices, overrides it all, simply

to award special interests to the timber interests.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

the balance of my time to our leader,

the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.

BONIOR].

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, we have

heard a lot of talk about sacrifice the

past few days.

But I do not think the American people need any lectures about sacrifice.

The senior citizens who stood by this

country during World War II, the working families who are struggling to

make ends meet, the middle class parents who are working hard to put their

kids through school, they know about

sacrifice.

They do not need any lectures from

Washington.

Every day in every way, the American people prove that they are willing

to take responsibility and do their

part.

The Republicans have come to this

floor and talk about sacrifice. About

how everybody must do their fair

share.

But is it fair to cut Medicare and Social Security in order to give tax

breaks to the privileged few?

Is it fair to cut student loans and

school lunches, in order to give tax

breaks to the wealthiest corporations

in our society?

Is it fair to target the middle class—

when we are not even willing to close a

loophole that lets billionaires renounce

their citizenship to avoid paying taxes?

This debate today is not just about

numbers and charts. It is not just

about line items and budget marks.

It is about the real lives of flesh and

blood people.

And that is really the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans look at this bill and see

a $319 million cut to LIHEAP. Democrats see senior citizens who will be

freezing in the winter.

You look at this bill and see a $20

million cut to WIC. We see children

who will be born at low birthweight if

they don’t get the proper nutrition.

You see a $25 million cut in the

school-to-work program. We see kids

who will not get jobs because they do

not have the skills to compete.

You see an $81 million cut to veterans benefits.

We see people who defended this

country who won’t get the medical

care they need and deserve.

This debate is about the real lives of

real people.

You want to talk about spending

cuts?

What about the $200 billion we give

away every year in corporate tax

breaks?

What about the $1.2 billion we give to

rich corporate miners?

What about the $4.3 billion we give to

rich corporate agribusiness?

What about the $50 billion you want

to spent on Star Wars? What about the

bloated CIA budget?

Can we not cut those programs first?

Do we have to target women and

children? Do we have to target seniors

and working families?

And what about that billionaires

loophole?

In this bill, you propose cutting $875

million from education programs.

Closing the loophole for billionaires

will save us $3.6 billion, that’s billion

with a ‘‘b,’’ over the next 10 years.

Yet when Democrats offered a bill to

close it, every Republican but five

voted against it.

So do not come here today and lecture us about sacrifice, about everybody doing their fair share, about everybody doing their part.

Do not tell us that you are doing this

for our kids.

Only Republicans in Washington

would believe that we could cut programs that help teach our kids, train

our kids, and provide jobs for our kids,

and then say they are doing it for our

kids.

And do not pretend that these cuts

are being made to cut the deficit, or

balance the budget.

The Brewster lockbox—which had

overwhelming support in this House—

which would have guaranteed that the

cuts went to deficit reduction—was rejected by the Republicans in conference.

These cuts are being made for one

reason and one reason only: to pay for

tax breaks for the privileged few.

This is a defining issue for our Nation.

The president is determined to veto

this bill.

And I am confident that we will have

enough votes to sustain that veto.

In the end, this vote comes down to

one simple question: do you really

think it is fair to target senior citizens, to cut education, to cut schoolto-work, to cut veterans benefits, to

cut nutrition programs, and to cut senior housing and heating assistance, in

order to pay for tax cuts for the

wealthy?

That is the question.

Is that what we mean by fair?

Is that what we mean by everyone

doing their part?

I say no.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to

vote ‘‘no’’ on final passage of this conference report, and when the President

vetoes it and sends it back, to overwhelmingly endorse and sustain his

veto.

b 1715

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER). All time has expired on the

minority side.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from California [Mr. DREIER].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how much

time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 61⁄2 minutes remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was contemplating yielding back the balance

of my time so we can move ahead, but

the speech that was just delivered compels me to yield myself the balance of

the time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair recognizes the gentleman from

California [Mr. DREIER] for 61⁄2 minutes.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to me it is

very sad that we have had to continue

this same kind of rhetoric that has

been going on for the past several days

and weeks around here. I listened to

my very dear friend say that Republicans see $319 million of savings by

cutting the low-income heating energy

assistance program and the Democrats

seeing senior citizens freeze to death in

the winter.

Now, the fact of the matter is:

Let’s us look at the low-income heating energy assistance program;

LIHEAP, it’s called. It was put into

place in 1979, when this country was in

the midst of an energy crisis. It was a

foreign policy issue, and the Federal

Government stepped forward because of

the escalating energy costs that existed and decided that people who were

in those areas that would get very cold

in the winter should get some kind of

assistance.

Now, where do we stand in 1995 when

it comes to those dramatically increasing energy costs juxtaposed to where

we were in 1979?

The cost of heating oil today is lower

than it was when we put this program

into place, and so to determine that

there are going to be people who will

freeze because of our desire to try and

bring about some kind of sanity in the

area of Federal spending is tragic, and

it is really demagoguery.

This program, this package that has

come from the Committee on Appropriations, in no way deals with taxes.

There are no tax implications to this

whatsoever.

This package that the gentleman

from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON] has

brought forward from his committee,

having labored for days and days along

with members of his staff and other

members of the committee, does two

very simple and basic things. It is designed to meet the very important disaster needs that exist, not only in my

State of California, but in 40 States

across this country. It is designed to
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5317

rebuild, to rebuild that Federal building that the entire world saw devastated in Oklahoma City, and this bill

is designed to cut Federal spending.

The very moving speeches that were

just given over the past several hours

here in looking at this balanced budget

issue have underscored the need to address this. So, disaster assistance and

cutting spending; that is what this bill

does. It is very important for us to

move ahead with this.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the

rhetoric about all of these tax cuts for

the rich, 75 percent of the benefits go

to families earning less than $60,000,

and I should not say benefits. All we

are saying is that they should be able

to keep some of their hard-earned dollars. Where do the rest go? They go to

the very important job-creating mechanisms that this country desperately

needs.

We have serious economic problems.

My State of California has yet to recover from the defense and aerospace

cuts. We need to have the kinds of tax

incentives that are built into the budget that we just passed.

This is a very fair and balanced rule

that will lead us toward passage of an

important historic appropriations bill.

As the chairman of the committee said

to our Committee on Rules last night,

this is the first time ever that we have

been able to have this kind of rescission package built in to meet a very

important need.

Vote ‘‘yes’’ for this rule, and ‘‘yes’’

for this important appropriation and

rescission bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous

question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 151, I call up the conference report on 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.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report is

considered as having been read.

(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of

Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at page H5013.)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON] will be recognized for 30 minutes,

and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.

OBEY] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON].

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks on the

conference report to accompany

H.R. 1158, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield myself such time as I may

consume.

(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, just

a little while ago we voted to balance

the budget over the next 7 years. Mr.

Speaker, what we are about to do in

this bill is to take the first step, the

first step toward that 7-year goal when

we ultimately balance the budget.

I am very, very pleased and proud to

bring to the House the conference

agreement on H.R. 1158, the emergency

supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill. The scope and size of this

agreement is unprecedented. It will rescind over $16.4 billion. Let me stress

that. It will rescind over $16.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this is the largest single

rescissions bill in history, and I say to

my colleagues, that if you add in the

$3.9 billion that was already rescinded

in the emergency defense supplemental

that is now law, the rescissions

brought forward by the Committee on

Appropriations total, in this year of

1995, are over $20.3 billion for the 104th

Congress. I do not believe you will find

any comparable performance in any

previous Congress.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are thinking about voting ‘‘no’’ on this bill, let

me simply say you would effectively be

voting not to save the American taxpayers some $9.1 billion in net savings.

Mr. Speaker, we started developing

this bill in our subcommittees the first

week in February. Today, over 3

months later, we have got a conference

agreement.

It has been tough. Many people said

we would not get this far, but we are

here. The conference was intense, the

issues were hard fought on all sides,

and I want to thank all the conferees

and all the staff on both sides of the

aisle for their very long and hard work.

I want to thank our Senate counterparts, especially the chairman on that

side, the Senator from Oregon, Mr.

HATFIELD, for his collegial participation in this very difficult conference.

This conference agreement is critically needed so that we can begin to

get our government’s fiscal house in

order. In order to be in a position to

achieve the savings anticipated in the

budget resolution that we have just

passed, Mr. Speaker, we have to start

the downsizing of government this

year. This agreement does that.

The conference agreement also includes important supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance in the

sum of $6.7 billion; for Oklahoma City

recovery, $105.4 million; for anti-terrorism initiatives and enhanced security,

$145.1 million; and for debt relief requested by the President for the country of Jordan the full sum of $275 million.

These supplemental appropriations

are more than offset by the amount of

the rescissions or cuts in this bill.

We have achieved the goals that,

frankly, I as chairman, set out for the

bill. We defunded unauthorized programs. We consolidated programs

where duplication was so obvious that

a meaningful service could not be developed or provided. We cut back on

programs that received large increases

in fiscal year 1995 appropriation bills;

where we found programs that just do

not work or are wasteful or inefficient,

we stood up and said so; in other programs we flushed the pipeline, especially in the Department of Housing

and Urban Development, where we

eliminated those funds that are justifying around being unused.

This bill yields over $9 billion in savings, and none of these savings go for

any tax cuts, contrary to what many of

the arguers contended during debate on

the rule just a little while ago. All of

the savings in this bill, under the Byrd

amendment, are required to go for deficit reduction.

Yesterday I regret to say, after 4

months of silence, after many, many

pleas to come forward and share his

thoughts with us, the President of the

United States stated his intention to

veto this bill when it reaches his desk.

I believe that that would be a tragic

mistake, Mr. Speaker. His expressed

concerns are totally without merit.

Over the last 5 months we have been

begging the President for his input. His

response was the sound of silence,

which, unfortunately or fortunately,

was broken yesterday with a suggestion of a patchwork of more social

spending, and only then, after the conference on this bill was concluded did

the President state his concerns and

provide a general list of alternative offsets, all of which consist of token increases in programs in which he

showed little or no interest as we went

through the conference.

In fact, the only indication of a veto

threat throughout this entire process

was on the subject of striker-replacements, which has not been included in

this bill. Apparently, the President

needs to reach a little better understanding on conference procedures. If

he wants his views considered, he

should interject them at that time

when they can be considered by the

conferees, and I want to assure him

that they would be considered as we

did with his Oklahoma City request.

Coming up with alternatives after the

legislative process has already concluded frankly does not reflect a very

good grasp of the job. Either that or

his staff does not have a good grasp of

theirs.

I might add the President still has

not given us the courtesy of submitting

a formal document to implement his

own recommendations. He says he

wants more money for Goals 2000. But

even with our rescissions, Mr. Speaker,

we will spend 300 percent more in fiscal

year 1995 than we spent the previous
H 5318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

year, three times the amount, even

after including the rescissions in the

bill. He wants more money for safe

drinking water, but he has not gotten

that program authorized. The money

can’t be spent because the program has

not been authorized, Mr. Speaker.

In the last 24 hours, he objects to the

emergency salvage timber sales, but

his Agriculture Department had actually signed off on the language and cooperated in the perfecting of that language.

He wants more money for Women, Infants, and Children, but his own bureaucrats admit they cannot spend

what they have got in the pipeline now.

And, finally, he complains about the

pork. This is the same President who

traveled halfway across America last

month to support construction of an

unbudgeted swine research facility,

which the House was rescinded in the

House passed bill.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, every ounce

of pork in the Federal checkbook that

was not rescinded in this bill has President Clinton’s personal stamp on it because it was passed by his Congress, his

majority in this House and in the other

body, and he signed every bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, the President

should indeed get off the sidelines. He

should get in the game. We need to get

on with our fiscal year 1996 bills. We

have already taken too long with this

bill.

This is the last shot, the last train

leaving the station for fiscal year 1995.

Every day that goes by, additional

funds that are proposed for rescissions,

for cuts, become obligated by the administration. So I hope that we will

pass this conference report and begin

the process of balancing the budget the

old-fashioned way, by making real, specific cuts that appear in this bill, and

let us send it to the President, and let

us ask him not to veto it.

Now is the time to start balancing

the budget. It will not get any better.

The decisions will only get harder if we

postpone them until fiscal year 1996.

All of those causes will only be harder

hit if we are going to truly work our

way toward a balanced budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends on

both sides of the aisle to vote for this

conference report if they want to work

toward a balanced budget.

b 1730

But if you vote ‘‘no,’’ in the final

analysis, you will be voting not to take

the first step towards a balanced budget.

Mr. Speaker, for the RECORD I will insert a table reflecting the conference

agreement.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5319
H 5320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5321
H 5322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5323
H 5324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5325
H 5326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5327
H 5328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5329
H 5330 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5331
H 5332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of

my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this debate

is the not about spending levels. The

President in his message yesterday indicated he wants to spend $50 million

less than the amount provided in the

conference report. There are some

other very good reasons to vote against

this bill.

First of all, this bill cuts programs

for kids and old folks, and despite the

denials on the Republican side of the

aisle, it does so to pay for tax gifts for

the wealthy and the well-connected.

We just passed a budget resolution

which slashed Medicare to pay for tax

cuts for the wealthy. Under that proposal, we are going to go back to the

‘‘good old days,’’ such as we had between 1982 and 1985, when 47 Fortune

500 corporations, even though they

made hundreds of millions of dollars in

profits, paid not one dime in Federal

taxes.

Even President Reagan recognized

that was wrong, closed the loophole in

1985. Under the tax proposals passed by

this House and endorsed by the budget

resolution passed today, we are going

to go back to those ‘‘good old days.’’

And this bill is going to help pay for

that new loophole. We should not be

doing that.

Let me trace for you the history of

what has happened on so-called deficit

reduction in this bill. When this bill

was first in the committee, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out,

the committee chairman said that the

cuts in this bill were going to be used

at least in part to pay for those tax

cuts. Then that rhetoric was softened.

During the debate in the committee,

we said we thought it was wrong to cut

Healthy Start for preborn kids; we said

we thought it was wrong to cut school

nutrition; we said we thought it was

wrong to cut public broadcasting for

preschool kids; we said we thought it

was wrong to cut education and training funds; we said we thought it was

wrong to cut fuel assistance and housing for the elderly all in order to give

somebody who was making $200,000 a

year a tax cut.

The Republicans in committee voted

down the amendment offered by the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

MURTHA], which tried to dedicate all

cuts to deficit reduction. On the floor,

after pressure on that subject, the Republican majority said: ‘‘OK, we

changed our mind.’’ They voted for the

Brewster amendment, and so did we,

which said that all of the funds that

were saved in the bill would be used for

deficit reduction.

One day after that amendment

passed the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.

KASICH], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, said that well, they

could not afford to live with that language because they wanted to have the

out-year savings used in order to finance that tax package. Now the chairman of the committee claims that because of the adoption of the Senate

amendment in conference, that somehow the Brewster amendment is protected.

I want to ask one question: If the

Brewster amendment was protected,

why did the Republican conferees vote

against my motion in conference to

keep it? You voted against it, you

killed my amendment that would have

saved the Brewster amendment, 8 to 6.

If the Brewster amendment had been

protected in conference, $50 billion

more of savings in this bill would be

dedicated for deficit reduction. They

would not be available to finance that

turkey of a rich man’s tax cut that you

supported on the other side of the aisle.

The CBO, as I said earlier, fully understands that if all of the dollars that

were saved in this bill were dedicated

to deficit reduction, as the Brewster

amendment provided, there would be

$50 billion more in deficit reduction

provided under this proposal. So I

think that is reason enough to vote for

this proposition.

And there is a second reason. It is

simply because this bill represents

warped priorities. It cuts education and

training funds by $875 million. Is it

really smart to cut our effort to preserve drug-free schools by 50 percent?

Is it really smart to cut school-to-work

programs? Do you really want to take

deep cuts in elderly and housing

projects in order to move funds down

the line to use for tax cuts for wealthy

people?

Someone on the other side have just

suggested that the LIHEAP program,

low income heating assistance program, was not all that important to old

folks anymore. I want to tell you, 80

percent of the people who use that program make less than $10,000 a year.

One-third of them are disabled. Two

million senior citizens nationally use

that program.

I will never forget a woman in my

own district, in Stevens Point, I met

when I walked into her house to talk to

her about the program. She lived in a

house that was built for her by her husband as a wedding present. She was 82

years old. She had very little money.

She had every room in that house

closed up except the living room, the

kitchen, and the bathroom, in order to

save heat. She slept on an old beat up

couch in the living room.

That house meant as much to her as

life itself. It was her last link with her

husband. She desperately wanted to

hang onto it, and it was low income

heating assistance program that helped

her to do so.

Do you really think you ought to cut

a woman like that so you can give one

of your wealthy $200,000 a year income

friends an additional tax break? Pardon me, I do not agree with those kind

of priorities.

I think we also ought to take a look

at what you have not cut. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. SHUSTER, got up here and defended highway demonstration projects. I like to

see highway projects built just like

anyone else, but not at the expense of

senior citizens, not at the expense of

drug-free schools, not at the expense of

decent education and training opportunities for our young people.

Of all things, I do not see why this

Republican-controlled Congress should

have retained the Benedict Arnold tax

loophole provision which allows people

to renounce their American citizenship

in order to avoid paying taxes to the

country that made them rich in the

first place.

The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. KASICH] said that we hate rich people on

this side of the aisle. Absolute nonsense. I would like everybody in this

society to be rich. Profits are good for

this country. High incomes are good

for this country. But what is also good

for this country is that when people

make it, and they make it very well in

this society, they should not be pulling

the ladder up after them. They should

be willing to pay their fair share to

support the public services in this

country that the entire society needs.

That is all we are suggesting.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH], said the vote today was about

balance. There is nothing very balanced about proposals that cut back on

aid to seniors, that cut back on educational opportunities, that cut back

on veterans who have fought and

risked their lives for this country, in

order to give somebody who makes

$200,000 bucks a year a tax cut. That is

not balance at all. That is extreme. It

is wrong economically, it is wrong

morally.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the

President for drawing the line in the

right place. We ought to turn this bill

down. We ought to reshape it, we can

easily do that in a week, and we can

come out here with something that we

can be proud of.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 3 minutes to the distinguished

gentleman from California [Mr. LEWIS],

the chairman of the Subcommittee on

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my chairman yielding. I did not intend to speak

on this measure, but the fact is that

over half of the funds we are talking

about here, the rescissions, came out of

my subcommittee. In view of the President’s decision—at least it appears to

be a decision—to veto this measure, I

thought there were at least a couple of

points I should try to make.

My colleagues, the President has proposed a list of 14 items that if restored

would cause him to sign this legislation. Five of these items fall under the

jurisdiction of my subcommittee.

While all of them deserve mention,

there are two points that I would like

to make.

As you know, the AmeriCorps Program budget of 1995 has been reduced

by $210 million to the 1994 funding level

of $365 million. This reduction was
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5333

made not out of partisanship, but out

of a true desire to review how well the

AmeriCorps Program has worked, a

program the President holds at the

highest priority.

Many of my colleagues made it no secret that they wanted to eliminate this

program. Until now, I personally had

not come to a final consideration on

the matter. Today I stand before you

convinced that the President has already given up on the National Service

Program, AmeriCorps. His veto promise has raised the stakes, and regardless of the outcome, I now believe the

President will lose on that one.

Like it or not, the National Service

Program has become an even larger

target than ever before. Maybe not

today or this week or this month, but

you can rest assured the AmeriCorps

Program will be the victim of this debate and this veto. The writing is now

on the wall.

Mr. Speaker, there is another item

that I would raise that would hopefully

cause the President to reconsider his

position, and that is my second point.

A few months ago, before my committee, James Lee Witt, the Administrator, the Director of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,

told us that without replenishment,

that as of the end of May, FEMA would

run out of money. They would be out of

money. No more in the pipeline.

Think of the disasters. Not just

earthquakes and floods in California,

but disasters across the country. Of

most important recent notice, the horrible disaster of Oklahoma City. FEMA

running out of money, not being able

to respond to those disasters. The

President is now actually thinking

about turning his back on those people

who had to deal with those disasters.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to rethink this position. He

should not take the advice of his political advisers. He should look to the people of the country who at this moment

need our assistance.

Mr. Speaker, upon completion of the

conference on HR 1158 this past Tuesday morning, I had anticipated taking

just a little time to briefly discuss the

role my subcommittee—VA, HUD, and

independent agencies—had in achieving

over half of the budget savings realized

in this emergency supplemental and rescissions bill.

While we certainly had difficult

choices, the conferees on this chapter

worked diligently to retain or restructure certain high priority items while

at the same time making meaningful

reductions where we thought appropriate. Our final decisions were, in my

mind, legislative compromise in the

truest and best sense of the word.

Perhaps more important than the

specific choices we made though was

the fact that our actions have gotten

us headed on a track that recognizes

the even more difficult budget decisions awaiting us in fiscal year 1996 and

beyond. Simply put, balancing this Nation’s budget will require hard choices

and sacrifice on the part of each and

every lawmaker and each and every

citizen.

It is in this vein that I am absolutely

dismayed at the announcement by the

President that he will veto this legislation. The very first real opportunity

this President has had to show he truly

wants to get spending under control is

instead squandered for what can’t be

described as anything other than cheap

demigodary. As I mentioned the President has proposed a list of 14 items

that, if restored, would cause him to

sign this legislation. Again five of

these items fall under the jurisdiction

of my subcommittee, and a quick review of each of the other four items

points out just how ridiculous is the

President’s announced action:

Environmental Programs: Safe

Drinking Water—The President has

proposed restoring $500 million for

State revolving grant funds for this

program which does not now and has

never existed. This proposal will do

nothing more than put funds aside for

a program that likely will not be authorized until next year and, once it is

authorized, will likely see at least another half-year of rule writing before a

single dime is sent to the States. How

can the President possibly justify giving money to a program that does not

exist while agreeing to take funds

away from others that do?

VA Medical Care—The President has

suggested giving $50 million back to

VA medical care, even though these

funds are salary savings that the Department itself says it will not use.

This rescission will not impact a single

VA employee or patient, yet it clearly

appears on the President’s list merely

for its press value.

HUD: Assisted Housing—The President has asked to restore $150 million

to HUD assisted housing for residents

displaced by demolition of old housing

units, but apparently never checked

with HUD to see what their needs are

in this regard. In fact, the conferees restored half-a-billion dollars for this

purpose and there is enough money

now in the account to fund 20,000 families with 5-year vouchers or 50,000 families with 2-year vouchers. According to

the Department, this is more than adequate to meet their needs.

HUD: Housing Opportunities for People With Aids (HOPWA)—The President’s suggestion to restore $30 million

in this account is truly the height of

hypocrisy. The 1995 funding level of

$156 million for HOPWA is exactly

what the President requested for the

program for 1995. Moreover, this funding level agreed to by the conferees

now leaves over $400 million available

for HOPWA, meaning this administration has yet to even distribute all of

the funds we appropriated for HOPWA

in fiscal year 1993, let alone use the

funds we provided for fiscal years 1994

and 1995. Shouldn’t the President be

more concerned with helping the people we meant to be helped rather than

raise phony issues meant to obscure

the real facts?

Mr. Speaker, although I can’t speak

to the details of each of the 14 items, I

am quite certain the story for each is

similar. The President’s scenario in

this sorry episode is, indeed, all too

clear: he decides for the first time to

fully engage himself in this rescission

process that for this Member started in

January. He realizes he is late to the

table so threatens to use his veto to

get his way. For cover, he demands

that 14 sexy- looking programs be restored, yet utterly fails to realize there

is no substance behind restoring most

if not all of the 14 items He hopes to

claim a public relations victory, caring

not that the real losers are the American public who most go on paying for

programs that should, indeed must, be

phased out.

Mr. Speaker, the President’s actions

so far in this regard is politics at its

absolute worst and nothing short of

despicable. I can only hope he somehow

get a dose of honest conscience before

his pen makes the wrong marks.

Mr. Speaker, in the hope that the

President will in fact sign this bill, I

would like to take an additional moment to clarify our intent with respect

to language included in the bill dealing

with EPA’s Automobile Inspection and

Maintenance Program provided for in

the Clean Air Act.

Under the regulatory framework first

developed by EPA, a premium was

placed on State adoption of a centralized testing facility, while an automatic discount was applied to

noncentralized facilities proposed by

the States. EPA itself has recently indicated they intend to be more flexible

in the granting of credits for

noncentralized programs, and our bill

and report language should be interpreted to support EPA in this movement toward flexibility and reasonableness.

Rather than automatically discount

programs, EPA should attempt to assign credits to each State’s program

based on the worthiness of each program. Higher credits, even up to 100

percent, need not be granted just for

programs that have expensive equipment. On the contrary, if a State presents a plan that outlines how and why

a certain level of credit can be

achieved, EPA should be reasonable

and thoughtful in its review process toward making a decision allowing such

appropriate credits. If EPA believes additional data is required to make the

State’s case, they should be flexible in

permitting such data collection for up

to 2 years or two full cycles.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that

what we are doing in their regard is a

step in the direction of truly permitting sound science to prevail. Sometimes laws and regulations become too

prescriptive in our zeal to achieve an

end result. I am absolutely committed

to our national goal of clean air, but I

am equally persuaded we must be flexible and allow new methods and new
H 5334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

technologies and new ideas to lead the

way toward this goal. If the agency

will not or cannot provide that flexibility I am quite certain the Congress will

once again address this issue in a manner that is perhaps less appealing to

those who support our clean air goals.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr.

WALKER). Members are reminded that

all remarks are to be addressed to the

Chair.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STOKES], the

ranking member of the Subcommittee

on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I thank

my ranking minority member for

yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158, a bill rescinding appropriations for fiscal year 1995.

From the very beginning of deliberations on this legislation, it has been

clear that Draconian and callous cuts

to funds already approved for Federal

programs were for the purpose of fulfilling the Republican Contract With

America to cut taxes. This is abundantly clear when you consider that

the conference agreement rejects the

House adopted amendment which required all budgetary savings from the

rescissions bill be used for deficit reduction. Under the Republican proposal, these savings can be use to finance tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest persons in this Nation.

Take for example, the $6.3 billion cut

from critical housing programs serving

the elderly, low income, and homeless

families with children, and the disabled. The $1.9 billion cut from incremental assistance programs means a

loss of 52,000 section 8 rental certificates. An additional $815 million reduction in public housing modernization

will prevent public housing agencies

from rehabilitating some 40,000 substandard pubic housing units. Further

cuts of $620 million to public housing

development will prevent the tearing

down and replacement of 7,000 of the

most distressed public housing units in

the Nation.

On top of these reductions, there is

the $1.5 billion cut to the Labor and

Employment Training Program, the

$844 million cut to Health and Human

Services programs, and the $875 million

cut to education programs. I find these

reductions in quality of life programs

appalling. Further, how can the Members of this House support a bill that

cuts $65 million from student aid, cuts

$11.2 million from TRIO, cuts $236 million from safe and drug-free schools,

eliminates summer youth jobs in fiscal

year 1996, and cuts by 68 percent funding for youth employment training? In

an ever-increasing technological society, instead of ensuring that we provide adequate training to new and returning workers, this bill makes drastic cuts in vocational and adult education, displaced worker initiatives,

and school-to-work programs.

This bill sends a signal to the rest of

the world that the United States of

America, a world leader, places a very

low priority on the education of its

youth.

While the uproar over initial rescissions figures forced restoration of some

of the funds taken from VA programs,

this bill still cuts $81 million from veterans programs. Therefore, Republicans are sending a message to our

veterans that their needs are not as

important as tax cuts for the wealthy.

I can understand and support a balanced approach to addressing our Nation’s fiscal difficulties. But I cannot,

and will not, support balancing the

needs of the wealthy on the backs of

the poor, the elderly, our children, veterans, and the disabled. I urge my colleagues to defeat this conference report.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman’s position regarding the housing cuts of

roughly $6 billion, but does he realize

the President only asked to restore

$150 million of the housing cuts? Obviously the balance of over $5 billion is

okay with him.

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I will accept the gentleman’s comment.

b 1745

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Illinois [Mr. PORTER], the distinguished

chairman of the Subcommittee on

Labor, Health and Human Services,

and Education.

(Mr. PORTER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides

of the aisle have worked on this rescission package for over 21⁄2 months. We

worked through the House and the Senate and for the past 2 weeks we have

been meeting often, often late into the

evening in order to resolve our differences.

Nowhere, nowhere in this process was

the President or his representatives

seen. There was no hint to any of us as

to his feelings regarding sections of

this bill, and I think all of us were dismayed on opening the newspaper a day

or two ago to find that he has vowed to

veto it.

He has not been a part of the process.

He has not said to any of us he would

veto it, if certain conditions were not

met. And what is most dismaying, Mr.

Speaker, is that he is talking about

$1.5 billion or about 9 percent of a $16.5

billion bill, which is itself only 1 percent of the entire Federal budget for

fiscal 1995.

He is talking about half of that in

the area of education and job training

or one-twentieth of 1 percent of Federal spending, a minuscule amount. He

objects, even though in our area of

labor, health and human services and

education, the House figure was $5.9

billion in rescissions, the Senate figure

was about $3 billion in rescissions, and

the House went very far in accommodating the view of the Senate, which

the Senate was very insistent on, and

we ended up at $3.3 billion. So we were

not making the heavy cuts that the

House had recommended in our area.

We, rather, deferred to the Senate on

most of these matters. And the cuts involved are cuts that are very, very

minor, although obviously in programs

that we consider to be very important

as well.

I find the President’s lack of attention and unwillingness to be at the

table irresponsible in the extreme. I

find his threat to veto this legislation

incomprehensible. If we are to approach our entire fiscal 1996 budget

with a President who will not be at the

table, who will simply say, I am going

to veto it when all the work is done, I

think we are going to have a very, very

difficult time indeed.

No one wants to ascribe certain motivations to the President. I will not do

so. But I will say that it is irresponsible for the President to threaten such

a veto.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BREWSTER].

(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, this

floor has been full of debate on the

budget the last few days. Many Members from both sides of the aisle have

spoken on the importance of deficit reduction and debt reduction.

And, yet, this conference report is

classic double-speak. This conference

report does not contain the BrewsterMinge lockbox, but rather contains a

Pandora’s Box. The Brewster-Minge

lockbox, which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 418 to 5, has

been scored by CBO as containing $66.2

billion in savings.

Instead, this afternoon we are considering a conference report with a watered-down version of the lockbox—a

true Pandora’s Box. This conference report has been scored by CBO to only

save $15.4 billion—over $50 billion less

than the Brewster lockbox.

That’s $50 billion that should be deposited in the lockbox but will instead

go for additional spending.

Mr. Speaker, I will be candid about

my feelings on this conference report.

There are many difficult cuts in this

bill that will effect education, housing,

economic development and agriculture.

There are programs eliminated that

are very valuable to my State of Oklahoma.

I have discussed with my constituents over the last few years about the

seriousness of the Federal deficit. They

do not like many of these cuts either.

But, these citizens are willing to once
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5335

again sacrifice in order to reduce our

deficit.

But, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, they

will not support these cuts if the savings goes for anything other than deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to

send this Pandora’s Box back to the

conferees, and let us come back with

the lockbox that will make these cuts

count.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 2 minutes and 20 seconds to the

gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BARR].

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I would like

to engage in a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the fiscal

year 1995 supplemental appropriations

or rescissions bill conference report

there is $100.5 million provided for socalled enhanced counterterrorism. Included in this figure is over $20 million

for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms and $77 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These

have caused me some concern.

As the chairman knows, just two

weeks ago the administration presented to the Subcommittee on Crime

of the Committee on the Judiciary incomplete draft counterterrorism legislation that contained proposals for new

federal authority, redefinitions of current authority and new jurisdiction, in

addition to a request for consideration

of a new counterterrorism center within the FBI.

Needless to say, the Committee on

the Judiciary is conducting a careful

examination of the testimony presented and is studying that which has

thus far been proposed. Unfortunately,

the administration has yet to finalize

its proposals to the Congress and necessarily its arguments in behalf of its

position are still unfinished.

Therefore, I was surprised to see that

the administration has somehow organized itself to make appropriations requests of the conference. It would be

most disturbing were the administration presenting differing sets of proposals to the House, one incomplete and

unfinished, and still another to the

conferees if an effort to sidestep its responsibility to argue for its views before the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, in this case the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, in view of these concerns and understanding our mutual

desire to see important emergency

funding to help the people of Oklahoma

City, I want to ask, is it the gentleman’s understanding that none of the

funds in this rescissions package provide for new or expanded authority for

any federal law enforcement and including but not limited to ATF and the

FBI.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman

from Louisiana.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the

gentleman should be pleased to know

that except for one provision that permits the Attorney General to offer up

to a $2 million reward to capture the

people responsible for the Oklahoma

City tragedy, there are no new or expanded authorities contained in this

conference report. What we do in this

bill is to provide the immediate resources necessary to respond to the

tragedy in Oklahoma City.

Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN].

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, let me

first congratulate the chairman of the

committee, the new chairman of the

committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON], as well as the

minority spokesman on the committee,

the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.

OBEY], for their hard work on this. But

let me say at the outset, I sincerely

hope that this rescission bill is defeated today on the House floor and, if

it is not, I hope the President keeps his

word and vetoes it. I want to tell you

why.

For the past several months we have

heard like Banquo’s ghost rattling

through the halls. The Republican tax

break program rears its ugly head

every time Congress tries to tackle a

serious issue. We want to sit down and

talk about a balanced budget, which

our nation wants and both parties profess to want, and yet the Republicans

insist on a tax break package which

gives tax breaks to the wealthiest

Americans and absolves the most profitable corporations from paying their

fair share of Federal taxes.

We want to talk about a bill like

this, a rescission bill to cut spending so

we can come up with money to pay for

disasters in California and Oklahoma

City and other places. The Republicans, again, want to make sure that

some of the money that we are going to

save will be around to fund the tax

break package for the wealthiest privileged few in America.

It just boggles my mind, and I have

been around politics so long. What is in

this tax break package that is so important to them that they will literally

taint every debate on this floor by

making certain there is money in there

for their tax break? I tell you what it

is, my friends. It is because for some

big businesses and for some special interests, that tax break means more

than every other issue on this floor.

They are sticking with it, even if it

means cutting 80,000 people off of the

WIC program. Women and children who

would get prenatal care will not because of this spending cut bill. They

are sticking with it even if it means

eliminating the Food and Drug Administration reorganization plan, to make

that agency more efficient so it can

safeguard our families.

No, they will make these cuts, and

they will have to answer, and their answers are not any good because the Republican tax break program is not

what we are here to talk about. We are

here to get this public’s House in order,

to get our budget in order, and that tax

break package is not the way to do it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman

from Iowa [Mr. LIGHTFOOT], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee

on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government.

(Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me.

In response to the previous speaker

and all the rhetoric we have heard

around here today about tax breaks

and tax cuts, if BS was a dollar a

pound, we would have paid off the deficit at about noon. This thing has nothing to do with tax breaks or tax cuts.

What part of zero do we not understand

here?

What I really came down here to talk

about was the president’s veto on the

rescission package. It is like he is trying to Monday morning quarterback a

ball game that he did not even watch.

The chairman of our committee, the

gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON], not only invited him to watch

the game, he invited him to participate, clear back in the month of February.

They declined to do so at the White

House. Yesterday we got the message

they are going to veto the rescission

package.

We asked the GSA to give us a list of

the so-called pork that is in our portion of the bill. That was yesterday.

Today we finally get a response. OMB

has ordered GSA not to give us a list of

any kind. Mr. President, where is the

pork? If you say it is there, identify it

so we can work on it, because we think

that we took every bit of pork out of

this package that was there. The unauthorized programs are gone.

So I would only say in closing that,

as we look at this rescission package,

we also should be cognizant that the

president’s approval ratings went up

for the way that he handled Oklahoma

City. And he is to be commended for

that. But now the rubber meets the

road. The money for Oklahoma City is

in this bill. The investigative agencies

who hopefully will put together a successful investigation that will convict

and send to prison the people who perpetrated the crime in Oklahoma City

are running out of money. The money

for that investigation is in this bill.

The President says he wants to veto it.

I think when we learn someday that

you can go to hell for lying the same as

stealing, this will be a lot better town

to live in.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. FAZIO].

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the chairman of the committee on his first conference report and the ranking member
H 5336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

on our side, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY], for working together. But regrettably, I fail to understand why we are here today. I wish we

could have gone back to conference,

worked out the finetuning that would

have been required to bring this bill to

the floor and pass it with little, if any,

opposition.

The President does have a role to

play and he has played it. I believe that

the President’s priorities are important and we need to talk about them.

We look at those programs that have

been cut, the safe and drug-free schools

program which will have $200 million

less to fight these problems on campuses across the country.

We look at the Goals 200 program,

which will increase academic standards

for students throughout our country,

something we have worked closely on

with employers and school administrators and teachers and parents and students, something that has been advocated by the Governors of our States.

b 1800

We have cut $90 million out of their

program this year. The school-to-work

program, which was designed to help

move children from the school system

that is not always succeeding in educating them to jobs, something that

has been essential to try to make our

young people more effective in the job

market, and to make our country more

competitive in the international market we are part of, that program is reduced in this bill.

The President has good reason, therefore, to ask us to go back and take up

the task again. The reason that we, I

think, find it difficult to do that, the

reason we seem to be so dug in that we

need to be here today, is for one very

good reason. That is that after we pay

for the much needed disaster relief,

from California to Oklahoma City and

around this country, once we have paid

that bill, that $7 billion bill, we wanted

to take $9 billion more out of this current fiscal year, not to balance the

budget, but to provide tax cuts for the

wealthiest in our society. That is terrible and it is regrettable. I am hoping

we can fix it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Ohio [Mr. REGULA], the distinguished

chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, President

Kennedy said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Today we took, earlier, a giant step toward a balanced budget for the year

2002. That is the passage of the budget

resolution.

Now we have an opportunity to take

another step. That is to support this

rescission bill. I say that because many

of the programs, many of the construction projects that were rescinded,

would have great outyear costs. By

stopping these programs, slowing them

down, rescinding buildings, rescinding

other expensive projects, it will save

money as we go down the road. Therefore, this bill becomes very important

if we are to reach the goal of a legacy

of a balanced budget and a strong economy for future generations in the next

century.

Mr. Speaker, I would also just add

that we do deal with a forest problem

that enables us, in the Forest Service,

to take diseased, dead trees, trees that

have been scarred by fire, and use that

lumber for the benefit of the young

people of this Nation that want to

build homes at a reasonable cost.

I was out in California and spent 2

days looking at the program. I think it

will work very well. It will not in any

way harm the forests, and it will provide for their health by removing trees

that could be a potential fire hazard for

the future. Therefore, I think this bill

has a lot of good features.

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge

my colleagues to support this second,

very important step towards a balanced budget.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HOYER].

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

opposition to this rescission bill. This

rescission bill, to some degree, came

out of the air. If it did not come out of

the tax cut that we keep talking about,

I am not sure where it came from.

The gentleman who now chairs the

Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal

Service, and General Government of

the Committee on Appropriations did

not come to me at the end of last year

and say ‘‘We ought to get this out of

bill. This is wrong. It should not be in

the bill.’’ I did not hear any other

ranking member say that in committee, as I recall, and certainly not the

$16.4 or $17 billion. If that did not come

simply because we needed to get money

for a tax cut, I do not know where it

came from. Nobody has told me where

that magic figure came from.

The fact of the matter is we passed a

bill which balances the budget by 2002.

That is fine. I voted for one of the

amendments that did exactly that; not

for the one that had the tax cut in it,

but for the other one, because I

thought the priorities were better, and

the priorities in this rescission bill

stink. That is what the President said,

and he was telling the truth. He was

not lying.

The fact of the matter is the priorities in this bill are not for the children

pictured in the last debate. Summer

jobs go down the drain in this bill, for

young people that need that experience

and need that future. That is not a policy that is looking to have people fly,

I suggest.

This rescission bill is ill-considered,

in that it does not address what are

really the priorities of this country.

There is no priority to cut the taxes for

the wealthiest 10 percent in America. I

would like to cut their taxes. Very

frankly, most of us fall within that

category, and we will personally benefit from that tax reduction. However,

the fact of the matter is there are a lot

of people in this country who need the

opportunity to succeed, and this bill

takes it away from them.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as he may consume to

the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.

SKEEN].

(Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, we continue to

hear over and over again how we are taking

the food out of the mouths of babes. Well, as

chairman of the subcommittee that funds the

WIC program, let me clear the air once and

for all.

Since fiscal year 1990, annual increases to

the program have ranged between $200 million and $350 million. During this same time

period, the unspent recovery balance has increased from $28 million to $125 million. The

program couldn’t absorb the large increases

we were giving it every year.

The bill we have before us rescinds $20 million from the $125 million unspent fiscal year

1994 carryover balance. We have heard the

Democrats say that this $20 million rescission

would result in 480,000 fewer food packages.

I’m not sure what this means. In the history of

program, no one has ever measured the program by the number of food packages. The

measurement has always been the number of

women, infants, and children served.

The truth of the matter is, even with this $20

million rescission, the Department does not

expect to change its estimates on how many

additional women, infants, and children will be

served this year. Why? Because the President

is projecting an unspent recovery balance of

$100 million at the end of this fiscal year, fiscal year 1995. What does this mean? It

means that the average monthly participation

will still increase by 500,000 this fiscal year.

This rescission will have absolutely no effect

on the 1995 level of participation.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Virginia [Mr. WOLF], the chairman of

the Subcommittee on Transportation

of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

strong support of the bill, and want to

commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON] and members of

the committee on both sides of the

aisle, and the staff, for the work they

have done. I want to change what I was

going to say. I keep hearing about a

tax cut. If this is for the tax cut, I say

good. The American family is under

more pressure today than any other

time in the history of the country.

Every indicator that you look at for

the well-being of the family is going

the wrong way. Child abuse is at an all

time high, spouse abuse is at an all

time high, teen suicide is at an all time

high, teen pregnancy an all time high,

teen violence an all time high.

I say if this is to give a mom and a

dad the opportunity to keep a little
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5337

more money so they can take care of

the family, I want to vote twice for it,

not once, but twice, if I could. That

would not be bad.

However, what we have done, I think,

has been good. Additionally, I will put

my statement in the RECORD on the

demo projects. We are not going to

have any demo projects in the transportation bill that comes out. They are

all gone. I do not support them. I will

never support a bill on this floor that

has demos coming out of my committee, so we do not have to worry about

them.

Number two, the administration has

never even called us. Our staff and Jim

Tarnall asked the administration on

the administrative costs. We cut $20

million out, the Senate cut $10, and we

asked them over and over, ‘‘Should it

be 15? Should it be 12? What should it

be?’’ They would not even give it to us.

I know why this bill is going to be vetoed, if it is. It is because of the reason

I heard on public radio, yesterday,

when they said ‘‘It is a political reason.

It is an opportunity to make a statement.’’ Demos are gone. They did not

talk to us, but if this money is used to

help the American family, I say God

bless, and we ought to be proud of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, which provides supplemental

appropriations for emergency disaster assistance for the Northridge earthquake, west- and

Gulf-coasts floods, and recovery assistance

for Oklahoma City, by rescinding $16.4 billion

in budget and obligational authority in fiscal

year 1995.

Within the $16.4 billion, the conference report rescinds $2.728 billion from transportation

programs. Rescissions in transportation programs are appropriate and necessary, particularly when the Congress is considering reductions in programs such as Headstart, hunger

programs, immunizations, and breast cancer

screening. Transportation programs should not

be exempt. Furthermore, the transportation rescissions contained in this conference report

are justified, reasonable and fair.

The conference report contains rescissions

in unavailable contract authority including:

$2.1 billion for the airport improvement program; and

$250 million for the magnetic levitation

[MAGLEV] prototype train development.

These balances of contract authority are

moneys that cannot be spent in fiscal year

1995 due to other provisions of law, and

therefore, these rescissions, when enacted,

will have a negligible, if any, impact on transportation in this country.

In addition, the conference report rescinds:

$132 million in highway research and development programs, including $40 million in intelligent transportation systems;

$42 million in the coast guard; and

$40 million in transit research and discretionary grants, by reducing 50 percent of their

obligated transit balances made available prior

to fiscal year 1993.

The conference report does not include a

reduction in highway demonstration projects,

as proposed by the Senate—a proposal which

I believe has a great deal of merit and for

which I am sympathetic.

I am opposed to earmarking Federal moneys for highways demonstration projects,

scarce transportation dollars must be carefully

directed to programs addressing essential

public safety needs rather than special

projects. I have announced this to my colleagues, State transportation officials, industry

representatives, and other interested parties.

I have written letters and outlined my position in statements and meetings, and am underscoring my position here today. Simply put,

it has become a choice between paying for

the truly essential public safety needs or continuing to spend for these highway demonstration projects. To me, the choice is clear. Without regard to partisan politics, and without reference to the merits of any particular projects,

the fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill will contain no highway demonstration projects.

With respect again to the conference report.

It should be noted that since the Congress

began to consider rescissions in January, and

subsequent to the Senate’s action in March,

unobligated balance in the highway demonstration program accounts dating back to

1982 and 1987 have been reduced by nearly

half. Unobligated balances have fallen from

$252 million to $149 million today. And it is

still dropping.

The mere threat of this Congress rescinding

these balances over the past 90 days has accomplished what the Federal Highway Administration and 52 State Departments of Transportation could not do over the past 13

years—that is to get these funds out on the

streets for which they were appropriated. To

that end, we have been successful.

None of the transportation rescissions have

been raised by the administration as egregious or needing to be restored.

I urge my colleages to support this conference report.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentleman

from Texas [Mr. COLEMAN].

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would,

at the outset, only say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle in the

majority that if they are worried about

the disaster assistance for Oklahoma

City, efforts that we have made, that

we put into the supplemental bill, and

it is not just the rescission bill, it is a

supplemental, they were able to do

some things within 100 days. I am

proud of them. I think they could do

the same things with those matters.

Just pass the legislation, we will put it

on the President’s desk. We can deal

with this issue. We can find some

places to cut.

My chairman of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure has

been very forthright and very candid

and very honest about his position with

respect to highway demonstration

projects. I only question whether or

not the same thing will be true for

aviation projects, as well as transit

projects. I think we need some clarification on that, so there is no confusion.

Let me say that, really and truly, the

way this thing works, I know my colleague, the gentleman from California

[Mr. DREIER] was concerned about the

fact that we were having a veto. I was

looking at the Constitution the other

day. Article 1, section 7, is still in here.

Read it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

North Carolina [Mr. TAYLOR], a member of the committee.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr.

Speaker, I have had contacts from people all over the Southwest, the Southeast, and the eastern United States

asking that the rescission bill be

passed, primarily for the timber consideration. We have labor unions in

that area that are without jobs. We

have tens of thousands of people that

are waiting for the President to fulfill

his commitment on option 9, which

would put timber in the pipeline that

would allow those people to go back to

work. We have forest health being damaged because of insects, because of fire,

because of the damage to the forest

that could be obliterated if we could

get the salvage wood out of the forest,

and this bill provides a mechanism for

that. It also gives the taxpayer $135

million for doing it, which would go toward the deficit. It gives us an opportunity to keep our commitment.

Reading some of the opposition, one

of the folks who urged the President to

veto this bill stated that it would stop

clearcutting in the West. The depth of

dumb cannot be fathomed in this area.

These are dead and dying trees, not

live trees to be clearcut.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio,

[Ms. KAPTUR].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

opposition to this conference report.

For the last 2 days we engaged in debate over balancing the budget. That

fight to cut spending, reduce the deficit, and balance our budget must be

won. A budget balanced fairly, with no

tax giveaways to the privileged few, is

not beyond our abilities, though that is

not the budget that passed here earlier

today.

Now before us is another bill that

cuts spending, but again, does not dedicate its savings to deficit reduction. In

the original bill, we all supported the

Brewster amendment, which overwhelmingly passed this Chamber by

over 400 votes. However, what we have

here is a bill that imposes draconian

cuts: no summer jobs after this year, a

cut this year in thousands of jobs

across this country, no heating assistance for our seniors, and then it directs

those precious dollars to give tax benefits to the most privileged among us.

This bill deserves to be vetoed. We will

have another bill here that is just and

fair.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as he may consume to

the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. NUSSLE].

(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

What a difference 2 years makes, Mr.

Speaker. We are paying our bills even

during an emergency. I commend the

gentleman.
H 5338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Oklahoma [Mr. ISTOOK].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I support

this bill. I am insulted by the way the

President of the United States is handling it. He came to Oklahoma, we

wanted him to come, we were glad to

have him to mourn with us. However,

the money in here in response to Oklahoma is not for Oklahoma, it is for the

whole country, for heightened security

around the country, to defend against

the possibility of something happening

to the rest of you as happened to us.

The President pretending that he is

wanting to veto it because of pork, it is

a lie. What he is complaining about is

what was put in bills last year by the

Democrat leadership that he signed

and put into law, and he is trying to

say ‘‘It is your fault because you are

not taking out what I did.’’

What a lie, Mr. President. We are

sick of the rhetoric that you are using

on this. Do not do it. Look at it on the

merits. If you have some things you

want to take out, you should have sent

a list up when there is time to do it,

but I am insulted by the way the President is behaving.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER). Members are reminded that

the President of the United States is to

be treated in debate in the same manner as Members of the House.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

Mr. OBEY. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, do the rules

of the House allow a Member to impugn the motives or activities of the

President of the United States without

being subjected to having the words

taken down, as they would if he made

that charge about another Member of

the House?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

rules require that no Member may be

personally abusive to the President of

the United States, and the words may

be taken down, as with Members, if

such conduct takes place.

The words to be taken down, though,

would be requested from the floor.

Mr. OBEY. I think the Chair is absolutely right on his ruling. I want to say

that out of courtesy, I did not make

that motion, even though he was obviously out of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair noted for all Members the situation with regard to the President of the

United States.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

make a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. The Speaker indicated

that the words could have been taken

down if a Member had risen.

Does the Speaker have the authority

to raise that point?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Chair or any Members can raise the

point.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chair for his

response.

b 1815

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentleman

from Texas [Mr. EDWARDS], the ranking

member of the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today

is a sad day for America’s veterans. Before there was a Contract With America, America had a solemn contract

with its veterans. Today House Republicans have broken that contract with

our veterans.

One week before Memorial Day, on

the eve of our celebration of the end of

World War II, Republicans have cut $24

billion in veterans’ health care. According to the VA, that means by 2002

the closure perhaps of 41 VA hospitals.

It means a cut of 60,000 VA employees.

It means 4 million veterans may not

get health care, veterans who fulfilled

their contract with America in World

War II, in Korea, and Vietnam.

Now Republicans are saying $24 billion in veterans’ cuts is not enough in

one day. They are asking for another

$50 million in cuts in critical veterans’

health care and hospital equipment,

equipment that our veterans desperately need and deserve. That is not

fair, Mr. Speaker. It is not right. It is

a breach of contract with America’s

veterans.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentleman

from Utah [Mr. ORTON].

(Mr. ORTON asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me the

time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond

to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, who indicated that if these cuts

were used to fund the tax cut, then God

bless.

Unfortunately, that is not what that

Member or 417 other Members of this

body voted to do 2 months ago when

the Brewster amendment was passed.

That amendment would ensure that

spending cuts in this bill reduced the

deficit over the next 5 years.

However, that was stripped out of the

conference report as Chairman KASICH

and Majority Leader ARMEY indicated

it would be immediately after the bill.

The only conceivable reason for stripping this provision is to maintain flexibility to use these spending cuts to

fund the tax cut.

If leadership planned on keeping

their promise to cut spending, balance

the budget and fund the tax cuts, the

lock box provision would be irrelevant.

So why strip it out?

I support spending cuts to balance

the budget. However, this bill amounts

to spending cuts for the sole purpose of

paying for tax cuts. That is not the

way to balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I include my statement

in opposition to the conference report

for the RECORD as follows:

I rise in opposition to the conference report

on H.R. 1158, the omnibus rescissions and

supplemental appropriations for fiscal year

1995.

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than

words. House leadership has claimed that it

intends to balance the budget at the same

time or before cutting taxes.

Yet, twice today, we have voted on leadership proposals which amount to a clear statement that they plan on passing massive tax

cuts before making the tough spending decisions. Earlier today, the House budget resolution irresponsibly set up a two-step reconciliation process. Under this process, massive tax

cuts will be enacted 2 months prior to enacting

over 40 percent of the spending cuts needed

to balance the budget.

By stripping the lockbox provision, the rescissions conference bill that leadership is

bringing up for a vote now is a second clear

and unambiguous sign that leadership makes

spending cuts a secondary priority.

Two months ago the House voted 418-to-5

for the Brewster lockbox amendment. The

lockbox amendment would ensure that the

spending cuts in this bill over the next 5 years

are completely dedicated to deficit reduction.

However, in conference, this provision was

stripped, as Chairman KASICH and Majority

Leader ARMEY said it would be immediately

after the overwhelming vote in the House.

They never intended to allow these spending

cuts to reduce the deficit. I cannot support this

irresponsible fiscal behavior. The only conceivable reason for stripping this provision is to

maintain flexibility to use these spending reductions to finance tax cuts, without making

the spending cuts necessary to balance the

budget. The simple fact is that if leadership

follows through on their promise to pass

spending cuts sufficient to balance the budget

and pay for the tax cuts, the lockbox provision

would not matter. So why strip it out?

I support sensible spending cuts to balance

the budget. However, this bill amounts to

spending cuts for the sole purpose of paying

for tax cuts. This is not the way to balance the

budget.

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote. Let’s send this back to

the conferees to reinstate the Brewster

lockbox provision.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 1 minute to the distinguished

gentleman from Washington [Mr.

NETHERCUTT], a member of the committee.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the chairman of the committee

for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support

of H.R. 1158, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This conference report provides important

emergency funds for Federal disasters,

and for the second time this session,

Republicans have fully paid for emergency appropriations through corresponding offsets.

As has already been mentioned

today, included in H.R. 1158 is a provision that will prevent future national

disasters. The emergency timber salvage amendment directs the Forest
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5339

Service to remove dead, dying and diseased timber from our national forests

to the maximum extent feasible.

We, in the West, know that the

health of our forests has declined drastically because of prohibitions against

salvage logging, thinning and controlled burns. In the summer of 1994,

more than 67,000 wildfires burned almost 4 million acres of forest and

rangeland. 26 firefighters lost their

lives fighting these fires. In the month

of August alone, a partial list of Federal expenses came to $7.8 million per

day. The emergency salvage amendment is a provision that will go a long

way toward preventing future forest

fires by improving the health of our

forests today, and being sensitive to

environmental concerns. Most importantly, it will help small timber companies and rural communities.

I urge all Members to support this

supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time simply

to respond to comments made by 3 gentleman on the other side of the aisle.

First of all, with respect to the comments made by my good friend, the

gentleman from California [Mr. LEWIS],

he threatened retaliation against the

President and his favorite program in

this bill, AmericCorps, if the President

vetoes this bill. I think that is an example of what is wrong with the mindset on that side of the aisle these days.

I recognize the Republican Party is

new to power in this House, but it

seems to me that if the country is to be

well-served in the Republican Party’s

exercise of that power, that in divided

government persons with responsibility

on that side of the aisle need to learn

how to share power, not to threaten its

abuse.

Second, with respect to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PORTER] who

complained that the President was not

involved and that he did not know that

the President was going to veto the

bill, I would simply say he should not

be surprised.

I pointed out in the conference that

when meetings were held between the

Senate and the House conferees on the

labor-health-education programs in

this conference, that the Republican

subcommittee staff made it quite clear

to Democrats on that subcommittee

that we were not welcome to even attend the meetings. So if the gentleman

from Illinois is surprised that the

President vetoed the bill, he should not

be surprised because he put himself in

the isolation room.

I have a stack of letters from the

President to the committee at various

times during the process laying out exactly what they wanted done. We have

a letter on April 28 spelling out that if

the President were presented with a

bill containing objectionable provisions contained in the House version of

the bill as outlined below, he would

veto the bill, and he proceeded to list

29 specific problems. I do not know why

the sudden surprise.

With respect to the suggestion by the

gentleman from Iowa that implied that

the investigation of the Oklahoma

bombing would somehow be delayed by

the President’s veto, I will simply say

that is outrageously false. The Department of Justice has indicated to the

committee that the Oklahoma investigation is the top priority of the department and that the extraordinary

expenses related to the bombing for the

FBI, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshal’s

Service and the DEA are already being

incurred and funded using available

1995 funds.

With respect to the outrageous words

just directed by the gentleman from

Oklahoma [Mr. ISTOOK] against the

President of the United States, I would

simply say that those words have damaged the gentleman from Oklahoma far

more than they have damaged the

President of the United States. I think

I will simply let them go at that.

I urge a vote against this bill in the

interest of fairness and deficit reduction.

The letters referred to follow:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET,

Washington, DC, April 28, 1995.

Hon. BOB LIVINGSTON,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this

letter is to provide the Administration’s

views on H.R. 1158, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance and Rescissions Bill, FY 1995,

as passed by the House and by the Senate.

The Administration is strongly opposed to

the House version of the bill and believes

that it would unnecessarily cut valuable,

proven programs that educate our children,

aid the disadvantaged, and protect our

health and safety. If the President were presented a bill containing the objectionable

provisions contained in the House version of

the bill, as outlined below, he would veto the

bill.

While the Senate version of the bill is acceptable, there are a number of provisions

that could be improved. We urge the conferees to consider the concerns discussed

below.

As the President stated at the April 26th

Bipartisan Leadership meeting, he will

shortly be sending to Congress a supplemental request for the costs of the Federal

response to the Oklahoma City bombing. We

urge the conferees to include such funding in

H.R. 1158 and to present the President with a

bill that he can sign so as not to delay providing these urgently needed funds.

DEFICIT REDUCTION

This Administration remains firmly committed to deficit reduction. In 1993, we

worked with the Congress to enact the largest deficit reduction package in history. The

Administration’s economic plan helped bring

the deficit down from $290 billion in FY

1992—to $203 billion in FY 1994, to a projected

$193 billion this year—providing three

straight years of deficit reduction for the

first time since Harry Truman was President.

We believe that we can address the issue of

deficit reduction and provide for the Middle

Class Bill of Rights without putting low-income families at risk. In the FY 1996 Budget,

the President has proposed significant rescissions for FY 1995 and additional program terminations in FY 1996 for numerous low-priority programs. The Administration does not

believe that sound programs, especially

those aimed at helping the disadvantaged,

should be cut, particularly if such cuts were

made to finance a tax cut for higher-income

taxpayers.

CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN, EDUCATION,

AND THE DISADVANTAGED

The House-passed bill would impose severe

reductions on a number of high-priority programs. These reductions would have a particularly harmful effect our Nation’s children and disadvantaged by cutting funding

for National Service; the Summer Jobs program; Goals 2000; the Education for the Disadvantaged program; the Safe and Drug Free

School Program; the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund;

and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC).

While the Senate version of the bill represents a significant improvement over the

House-passed bill with respect to funding for

these programs, the Administration has concerns over any reductions to programs that

assist our Nation’s children and the disadvantaged. The conferees are urged to restore full funding for these programs, or, at

a minimum, accept the Senate levels.

JORDANIAN DEBT RELIEF

The President has made clear that the provision of debt relief to Jordan can contribute

to further progress toward a Middle East

peace settlement. We strongly support the

Senate language of H.R. 1158, which would

appropriate the full $275 million requested

for forgiveness of Jordan’s debt to the United

States. Every Administration since the creation of the State of Israel has determined

that the promotion of peace in the Middle

East is a vital U.S. National interest. Jordan

has taken important steps for peace at great

risk. Jordan and other countries in the region need concrete evidence that the United

States supports those steps and that we

stand by our commitments. For this reason,

full debt relief is of paramount importance.

We support providing as much of the $275

million of obligational authority in FY 1995

as possible.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This Administration remains firmly committed to increasing the Nation’s productivity and raising living standards by investing

in science and technology. These investments will lead to a healthy, educated public; job creation and economic growth; world

leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; and harnessed information technology. The rescissions proposed by the

House and the Senate for many science and

technology programs would severely threaten the United States’ standing with respect

to technology advancements and competitiveness. These include programs in the Department of Commerce, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the National

Information Infrastructure Grants Program,

and the laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and in the

Department of Education, such as grants for

the development and adoption of education

technology. The Senate is to be commended

for restoring funding for several of these programs. The conferees are urged to restore

full funding for these programs or to accept

the lower of the House or Senate rescission

level so as not to imperil our Nation’s standing on the technology frontier.

STRIKER REPLACEMENT

The Administration strongly opposes a

provision in the House version of the bill

that would prohibit the Executive Branch

from using FY 1995 funds to issue, implement, administer, or enforce any Executive
H 5340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Order or other rule or order that prohibits

Federal contracts with companies that hire

permanent replacements for striking employees. This provision would impinge upon

the Executive Branch’s ability to ensure a

stable supply of quality goods and services

for the government’s programs. The use of,

or the threat to use, permanent replacement

workers destroys opportunities for cooperative and stable labor-management relations.

Additional Administration concerns with

the House and Senate versions of the bill are

contained in the enclosure.

Sincerely,

ALICE M. RIVLIN,

Director.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS—H.R. 1158—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR

ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS BILL, FY 1995 (AS PASSED BY THE

HOUSE AND THE SENATE)

NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAM

The $416 million rescission proposed by the

House for the Corporation for National and

Community Service would virtually terminate the program. Remaining funds would

provide only 4,000 of the proposed 33,000 opportunities for young adults to serve their

communities as AmeriCorps members and

earn an education award. The proposed rescission would eliminate funding for the

Learn and Serve America program, which

provides support for thousands of school

children to learn responsibility to their community.

The Administration strongly believes that

national service is a key to solving problems

inside America’s communities. This program

has a proven track record. For example,

AmeriCorps members have already reclaimed

recreation areas in inner cities from gangs,

and thousands of low-income and migrant

children have received proper immunizations

to protect their health. AmeriCorps members

also have helped raise the spelling scores and

reading levels of rural disadvantaged children, built homes for ‘‘working-poor’’ families, and provided disaster relief assistance

to victims throughout the western part of

the country.

The conferees are urged to restore full

funding for this important program, or, at a

minimum, to provide for a rescission of not

more than $105 million, the amount recommended by the Senate.

SUMMER JOBS

The Summer Jobs program provides meaningful work experience for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth.

These young people might otherwise not

have any opportunity to learn necessary job

skills and workplace behaviors during crucial formative years. The Administration is

pleased that the Senate version of the bill

would not reduce funding for this program

for the summer of 1995, as proposed by the

House. However, the Senate, like the House,

would eliminate funding for the Summer

Youth Employment program in the summer

of 1996, thereby eliminating job opportunities for about 615,000 disadvantaged youth.

The Administration strongly believes that

improving the job prospects of at-risk youth

is an important element of a broader strategy to ensure employment opportunities for

all American and a vibrant, productive

workforce for U.S. business. At a minimum,

the conferees are urged to accept the Senate’s position on this program. If funding for

the summer of 1996 is not restored in this

bill, then the Administration will press for

restoration in the FY 1996 budget process.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The House version of the bill would reduce

funding for Goals 2000 by over one-third ($174

million), thereby greatly diminishing support to States and communities for raising

academic standards and improving their

local schools. The House also proposes to cut

the Education for the Disadvantaged program by $148 million, which would reduce

services to educationally disadvantaged children. The House version of the bill contains

a sharp reduction—$65 million—in funding

for education technology programs, which

would enable fewer local communities to put

state-of-the-art tools of learning in classrooms where they are most needed to prepare our students for the future.

The Senate version of the bill would reduce

Goals 2000 by $8 million, cut the Education

for the Disadvantaged program by $8 million,

and cut the Federal direct student loan program by $95 million. The conferees are urged

to restore full finding for Goals 2000, Education for the Disadvantaged, and education

technology programs, or, at a minimum, approve the Senate levels.

SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS

The Administration opposes the House action that would rescind nearly $472 million

in funding for the Safe and Drug Free School

Program at the same time that every pool

shows that crime and school safety are

major concerns of Americans. This program

is an important element of the Administration’s fight against the use of drugs and

stimulates by an alarmingly increasing number of our youth. The Administration is

pleased that the Senate has restored funding

for this important program and urges the

conferees to adopt the Senate position.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS (CDFI) FUND

The proposed rescission of $124 million contained in the House version of the bill would

terminate the CDFI program. The Senate restored $36 million of this amount. The conferees are urged to restore full funding for

the CDFI program. The conferees are urged

to ensure that the program remains balanced

between existing and new community development financial institutions, as provided in

the current authorization law.

Without full funding, in FYs 1995 and 1996

the CDFI Fund would be unable to provide:

$10 million in direct loan subsidies to support over $23 million of direct loans to

CDFIs; $70.5 million in grants, technical assistance, and other financial assistance to

CDFIs; and $39 million in community development incentives for depository institutions. The Fund’s investments in CDFIs,

banks, and thrifts would leverage an estimated $500 million in investments, loans,

and financial services in the country’s most

distressed communities.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM

FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

The House version of the bill would reduce

funds available for the WIC program by $25

million. The WIC program provides nutritious supplemental foods to low-income

pregnant, post-partum, and breastfeeding

women, and to infants and children up to

their fifth birthday. The House’s action

would result in 600,000 fewer food packages

for women, infants, and children. Jeopardizing the heath and welfare of these mothers

and children cannot be justified. The Administration commends the Senate for restoring

funding for this important program and

strongly urges the conferees to accept the

Senate proposal.

SCHOOL-TO-WORK

This innovative partnership, financed

equally in the Departments of Education and

Labor, provides seed money to States to create state-wide School-to-Work Opportunities

systems. These systems will help youth acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities, and

labor market information they need to make

a smooth and effective transition from

school to career-oriented work or further

education or training. The House proposes a

$12.5 million rescission for each department—a 10-percent reduction to the FY 1995

appropriation in each agency. The Senate rescission is $2.5 million for each department.

The Administration prefers the Senate level

and urges the conferees to support this important program, which will help youth obtain jobs and employers gain a responsible

and skilled workforce.

CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

While an improvement over the House version of the bill, the proposed Senate rescission of $0.8 billion in funds to help municipalities comply with Safe Drinking Water

Act requirements would still seriously exacerbate local financing problems. Municipalities need significant resources to comply

with existing regulations and additional billions to comply with future rules needed to

prevent problems such as the

cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee in

1993 that killed 100 people and caused illness

in another 400,000

Most affected by this rescission would be

the 27 million people who get their water

from a system that has violated drinking

water standards. If Congress were to fail to

authorize the drinking water state revolving

fund program, these funds could be used

without further Congressional action to address the $137 billion in wastewater construction needs.

Reductions are also proposed by the House

and the Senate for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) solar, renewable energy, and

conservation research programs. Such reductions would threaten our national effort to

implement fully, the Energy Policy Act of

1992 and the Climate Change Action Plan.

Reduction to the DOE science budget also

would adversely impact climate change,

human genome, and neutron research. The

additional reductions to the Environmental

Management program would impede progress

at several of the Department’s cleanup sites.

FEMA DISASTER RELIEF

The Administration continues to estimate

a supplemental requirement of $6.7 billion

for FEMA disaster relief. Absent approval of

this supplemental, FEMA estimates that

under current operations, it will need to redirect funds already allocated to other disasters to meet more immediate requirements

beginning in early summer.

JOBS CORPS

The House version of the bill would rescind

$10 million from the Job Corps program; the

Senate version, $46 million. The Senate’s action would halt expansion of a youth training program with a track record of improving the employment and earnings of poor

youth. It would also eliminate funds to continue work on eight new Job Corps centers

that were launched with previous years’ appropriations. Work is underway on these

eight centers, which would create 3,200 new

training slots for about 4,700 severely disadvantaged youth each year. In addition, the

Senate would eliminate funds to initiate

four new Job Corps centers in FY 1995, which

would boost capacity by another 1,600 slots.

The Administration prefers the House level.

JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA) YOUTH

TRAINING GRANTS

The JTPA Title II–C program provides

grants to States for training, education, and

employment services designed to provide

low-income youth with marketable skills

leading to productive, unsubsidized employment. The Congress already has rescinded

$200 million from this program in P.L. 104–

6—approximately one-third of the resources

available for the 1995 program year, which
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5341

begins in July. This would mean about

105,000 youth would not perceive services.

Both the House and Senate have proposed rescinding more than is contained in P.L. 104–

6. Adequate funding for this program is essential to provide the Department of Labor

the flexibility to work with States to re-examine the program’s design and test new

strategies to help youth succeed in the labor

market. The Administration prefers the

House level, which would reduce this program by an additional $110 million, as opposed to the $272 million reduction proposed

by the Senate.

ONE-STOP CAREER SHOPPING

This initiative provides competitive grants

to States to improve employment and training services by providing a common point of

access to career and labor market information, occupational skill requirements, and

other information about jobs and training.

The House proposes rescinding $12 million, or

10 percent of the 1995 appropriation; the Senate, $20 million. These career centers are key

to successful implementation of a new consolidated and integrated workforce development system serving the needs of job seekers

and employers. The Administration prefers

the house level.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Both the House and the Senate versions of

the bill would threaten the well-being of our

Nation’s most needy and vulnerable citizens

and would threaten the stability of our Nation’s most distressed communities. In particular, the draconian cuts targeted by the

House towards programs of the Department

of Housing and Urban Development would

deny help to 63,000 needy, low-income households, including many homeless families.

The House version of the bill could also prevent another 24,000 homeless families from

moving to transitional or permanent housing

during this fiscal year. Hundreds of communities would lose money that they have

counted on for critical community needs

such as housing rehabilitation and social

services for the elderly. In addition, the

House’s rescission of all FY 1995 funding for

the Federal Government’s primary rural

multi-family rental housing direct loan program (section 515) would put thousands of

rural residents living in existing Federal

multi-family projects at risk and jeopardize

the Government’s investment in these

projects. Many of the Department of Agriculture’s projects need to be rehabilitated

and, without the FY 1995 funding, would be

in danger of being closed.

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH AIDS

(HOPWA)

The HOPWA program provides housing and

other services for people with AIDS. Without

such assistance, some of the most vulnerable

people in our society would become homeless. The Administration is opposed to the

House action that would rescind $186 million

from the HOPWA program, thus eliminating

the entire amount appropriated for this program in FY 1995. We commend the Senate for

restoring funding for this important program

and urge the conferees to adopt the Senate

position.

VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG ABUSE CONTROL

The Administration opposes both the

House and the Senate’s recommendation to

rescind $65 and $29 million, respectively, for

violent crime prevention and drug control

initiatives. Within this overall reduction,

the House would reduce by $28 million and

the Senate by $17 million funding for Drug

courts, which will provide drug treatment

and real opportunities for rehabilitation for

non-violent, first-time drug offenders. The

Administration also opposes the House action that would cut $32 million from the

Drug Elimination grants at the Department

of Housing and Urban Development. The Administration prefers the overall Senate level

of funding for these programs.

The Administration objects to a provision

in the Senate version of the bill that would

delete all grant funding for the Ounce of Prevention program. This program is vital to

the Administration’s efforts to coordinate

crime prevention programs nation-wide. The

Administration prefers the House level of

funding for this program.

VETERANS MEDICAL CARE AND CONSTRUCTION

The Senate version of the bill would rescind $100 million from the Department of

Veterans Affairs for veterans medical care

and construction. These cuts would eliminate $20 million in new medical equipment

for veterans health care, $30 million for veterans health services, and $50 million for expanding or improving veterans medical facilities. The Administration believes these

cuts are unwise and unnecessary, and would

harm the veterans who need their nation’s

help the most. The Administration prefers

the House position.

TIMBER SALES

The Administration is opposed to a provision contained in both the House and Senate

versions of the bill that would too broadly

define ‘‘salvage timber sales’’ to include

sales of primarily healthy trees, supersede

the otherwise applicable environmental and

land management statutes, and restrict citizens’ access to the courts. The Departments

of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce

last month announced a comprehensive plan

to accelerate timber salvage sales. In addition to the measures already underway at

these agencies to accelerate timber salvage

sales, the Administration stands ready to

work with the Congress to find appropriate,

productive solutions to this pressing national problem that would not result in a return to gridlock, as may well result from the

bill’s provisions.

In addition, the Administration is opposed

to a provision contained in the Senate version of the bill that would overturn the existing environment and land management

framework of the President’s Forest Plan for

the Pacific Northwest (‘‘Option 9’’). The

carefully crafted balance in the Forest Plan

allows for a sustainable timber harvest as

well as environmental protection. This Plan

was key to the release of a court injunction

on logging in the territory of the Northern

Spotted Owl and represents a finely crafted

compromise that took two years to achieve.

The Administration believes that it can expedite Option 9 sales without setting aside

the existing land management framework.

CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

The Administration believes that the

House’s action to reduce funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) by a

total of 23 percent from FY 1995 to FY 1997 is

excessive and shortsighted. The Administration is committed to providing equal access

to educational opportunities, particularly

for young children, regardless of income or

geographic location. While the Administration does not support the Senate rescission,

which freezes the program at the FY 1995

level, the Administration prefers it to the

House action.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

The House version of the bill would rescind

$19.6 million from the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration. This is a 6.3 percent reduction in OSHA funding although,

effectively, a 12.6 percent reduction since it

comes so late in the fiscal year. The rescission would have a dramatic impact on

OSHA’s ability to fulfill its mission to protect workers and on the Administration’s efforts to make the agency more effective.

This rescission would hinder OSHA’s compliance assistance programs and education and

training initiatives, as well as enforcement,

resulting in an estimated 6,300 additional

preventable injuries. The Administration is

pleased that the Senate version of the bill

does not include this cut and prefers the Senate funding level.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Our Nation’s future economic health depends on strong public and private support

for science and technology. The proposed rescission to many of the Administration’s investments would jeopardize our ability to

achieve sustained economic growth and competitiveness.

The Administration prefers the Senate version of the bill with respect to the funding

level for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) over the

House version, which would reduce the number of new centers established from 36 to 10.

This would result in reduced access to stateof-the-art manufacturing technology and

techniques by U.S. manufacturers—a key

component of the U.S. economy.

The Administration objects to the House’s

proposed rescission of $30 million for the

Commerce Department’s National Information Infrastructure Grants program. The Administration believes that this program provides substantial benefits by facilitating access to information products and services by

all Americans. P.L. 104–6 rescinded $15 million from this program. If the rescissions

contained in the House version of the bill

were adopted, the program would be cut by a

total of 70 percent.

The Administration also opposes the $16.5

million and $19.5 million rescission of funds

proposed by the House and Senate, respectively, for laboratory research at NIST.

These rescissions would have a real impact

on industry’s ability to compete in both

emerging and mature markets and would result in the diminished competitive posture of

U.S. industry. NIST laboratories develop and

deliver measurement techniques and services

that provide a common language needed by

industry in all stages of commerce.

The House’s proposed rescission of $16.7

million and the Senate’s proposed rescission

of $12.5 million for the National Biological

Service in the Department of the Interior

would severely hamper the Service’s ability

to provide basic scientific information to the

land managing bureaus within the Department, including programs in the Pacific

Northwest. This rescission would force the

Service to consider closing one or more of

four major laboratory centers, and joint

State projects underway in more than 30

States would be reduced.

The Senate has proposed rescinding $42

million in funding for upgrades to the national transonic wind tunnel. These upgrades

have been planned for many years and are

critical to maintaining the performance of

these tunnels. The wind tunnel complex has

contributed to the development of almost

every U.S.-developed military and civil aircraft. Failure to modernize this facility will

increase the delay in critical test data.

These upgrades are needed now and are unrelated to the development of a new wind tunnel facility.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

AUTOMATION INVESTMENT

The Senate version of the bill would reduce

funding for SSA computer systems by $88

million, thus elimination all second-year

funding for SSA’s multi-year automation investment. This reduction would lead to deterioration in service by not allowing for the
H 5342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

purchase of new computer equipment as existing equipment wears out and customer demands increase. The funds proposed for rescission are already programmed to support

contract awards for quantities of computers

supported by the Senate and the General Accounting Office.

The Administration notes the Senate’s

concern about the total number of computers SSA plans to acquire over a five-year period. Under the current SSA plan, the level

of funding provided in FYs 1994 and 1995

would fund the installation of less than onethird of the total number of workstations

planned. The Administration believes that

the Senate’s concern with out-year plans

would be more appropriately addressed in relation to out-year funding.

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

The Administration does not support the

rescission of the full $1.9 billion proposed by

the Senate. Most of the projects proposed for

rescission by the Senate were proposed in

previous budgets. The Administration continues to support the requested funding levels for these construction and repairs and alterations projects. Rescission of funding for

new construction projects may result in

higher costs, if long-term needs must be met

in leased space. In other cases, where leasing

is not an option (i.e., courthouses and border

stations), it may not be possible to meet

Federal agency needs in the near term. Rescission of funds for modernization projects

and other repairs and alterations could lead

to the gradual deterioration of governmentowned assets.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Administration believes that the

House proposal to eliminate all emergency

relief funds is irresponsible, given the recent

flooding in California and other requirements likely to arise this year. The Senate

proposes to rescind only $50 million of emergency funds. The Administration also objects

to the Senate proposal to eliminate $50 million in contract authority for the congestion

pricing pilot program. This may restrict the

Department’s ability to pursue important

projects in FY 1996 and FY 1997 currently

being developed. While opposing the rescission of Coast Guard Operating Expenses because it undermines the recent supplemental, the Administration notes that the

Senate bill cuts a smaller amount. Finally,

both the House and Senate versions of the

bill include across-the-board reductions in

operating costs for transportation programs.

These reductions are in addition to the government-wide reductions in the Senate bill.

It is unfair for the Department to be hit

twice by such reductions. The transportation-specific provisions should be dropped.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

The Senate version of the bill would rescind $104 million from the Base Realignment and Closure accounts. This action

would slow local communities’ productive

reuse of base closure property by limiting

funding for environmental restoration. It

would also slow funding for construction of

facilities at receiving bases, which could

delay the move of some military units from

closing bases to their new locations. Making

property available for economic redevelopment is a key part of the Administration’s

Five Point Plan for assisting base closure

communities. The Administration prefers

the House level of funding.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

The Senate version of the bill would rescind $69 million from the NATO Infrastructure account. This action could undermine

existing NATO Infrastructure agreements

and treaty commitments and frustrate U.S.

efforts to increase the burdensharing contributions of our allies. All of the FY 1995 appropriations for NATO Infrastructure have

been obligated or committed for specific

NATO construction projects, which would

have to be terminated—with potential termination penalties—if the rescissions were enacted. Furthermore, such a rescission would

set a precedent for other NATO nations to

withdraw their support from the NATO Infrastructure budget. The Administration prefers the House level of funding.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

With regard to P.L. 480 food programs, the

Administration strongly supports the Senate

action rescinding the $142.5 million that the

Administration proposed for rescission. This

rescission is preferable to other rescissions

in international affairs programs in the bill.

The Administration prefers the Senate position regarding the funding level for foreign

operations programs. The Senate’s

unallocated reduction of $125 million would

give the Administration greater flexibility,

and would do less damage to foreign policy

priorities than the House’s targeted rescission totaling $192 million. For international

programs under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary

Subcommittee, the Administration prefers

the overall House position.

The Administration opposes the Senate

proposal to rescind $27.7 million for international broadcasting activities. In accordance with the Administration’s international

broadcasting consolidation plan and the

International Broadcasting Act of 1994,

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

and USIA’s Voice of America are in the process of significant downsizing. To accomplish

the reductions and relocation of RFE/RL to

Prague from Munich, over $100 million was

provided in FY 1995 specifically for the onetime costs of downsizing and the move. The

proposed rescission, along with the Senate’s

failure to provide $7.3 million that is needed

to offset exchange rate losses, would seriously hamper implementation of the consolidation plan passed by Congress, which is estimated to save over $400 million by the end

of FY 1997. The Administration prefers the

House’s position.

Both the House and the Senate propose to

rescind $14.6 million from the State Department’s Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities, which support peacekeeping activities around the world. This action

runs counter to U.S. national security and

foreign policy interests. The U.S. strives to

lead the international community in promoting peaceful resolution of regional conflicts. This rescission would undermine these

efforts, weaken U.S. leadership, and exacerbate the arrearage problem. In FY 1995, the

U.S. is in arrears (expected to total over $650

million) on its UN treaty obligations to pay

its share of peacekeeping activities. The conferees are urged to restore these funds.

S 617—SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND

RESCISSION BILL, FISCAL YEAR 1995

This Statement of Administration Policy

provides the Administration’s views on S.

617, the Second Supplemental and Rescissions Bill, FY 1995, as reported by the Senate

Appropriations Committee.

While the Senate Committee bill would delete or reduce several of the most objectionable rescissions contained in the Housepassed bill, the Administration must strongly oppose many provisions of the Committee

bill, and, therefore, finds the bill unacceptable. We believe that it unnecessarily cuts

valuable, proven programs that educate our

children and aid the disadvantaged, including the National Service program. The Administration also opposes reductions in programs that were established to ensure our

Nation’s role in the advancement of technology.

DEFICIT REDUCTION

The Administration remains firmly committed to deficit reduction. In 1993, the Administration worked with the Congress to

enact the largest deficit reduction package

in history. We cut Federal spending by $255

billion over five years, cut taxes for 40 million low- and moderate-income Americans,

and made 90 percent of small businesses eligible for tax relief, while increasing income

tax rates only on the wealthiest 1.2 percent

of Americans. As we placed a tight ‘‘freeze’’

on overall discretionary spending at the FY

1993 levels, we shifted spending toward investments in human and physical capital

that will help secure our future.

This Administration’s economic plan

helped bring the deficit down from $290 billion in FY 1992—to $203 billion in FY 1994, to

a projected $193 billion this year—providing

three straight years of deficit reduction for

the first time since Harry Truman was President.

We believe that we can address the issue of

deficit reduction and provide for the Middle

Class Bill of Rights without putting low-income families at risk. The Administration

does not believe that sound programs, particularly those aimed at the disadvantaged

and those that will ensure our Nation’s preeminent standing in science and technology,

should be cut. The Administration would be

particularly troubled if such cuts were made

to finance a tax cut for higher-income taxpayers. It is noted that the Senate Committee bill does not include language that would

direct that savings generated by the bill be

set aside for deficit reduction.

In the FY 1996 Budget, the President has

proposed significant rescissions for FY 1995

and additional program terminations in FY

1996 for numerous low-priority programs. In

contrast, the Senate-reported bill would impose severe reductions on a number of highpriority programs. These cuts would have a

particularly harmful effect on our Nation’s

children by cutting funding for National

Service, Summer Jobs, WIC, Goals 2000, Head

Start, Job Corps, Education for the Disadvantaged, direct student loans, and housing for families. Many of the cuts are shortsighted—reducing funding for education, for

advanced technology programs that are critical to our Nation’s future, and eliminating

funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, which

would be instrumental in leveraging investments in our country’s most distressed communities. Other cuts would adversely affect

the health of Americans by cutting funding

for safe drinking water and violent crime

prevention and anti-drug programs. In its

consideration of the bill, we urge the Senate

to restore these cuts.

FEMA EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee was chosen to include in this

controversial bill the urgently needed FEMA

supplemental, which is appropriately designed as an emergency for which offsets are

not required under the Budget Enforcement

Act of 1990. This could cause an unnecessary

delay in assistance to victims of natural disasters in 40 states, including victims of the

Northridge earthquake. If action on the Administration’s request is delayed, FEMA

will, beginning in May, be unable to allocate

funds to meet any new disaster requirements, unless money reserved for the 40

states currently receiving disaster assistance

is cut.

Additional Administration concerns with

the Committee-reported bill are contained in

the attachment.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5343

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS AS REPORTED BY THE

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAM

The proposed $210 million rescission for the

Corporation for National And Community,

Service would reduce significantly the President’s National Service program, depriving

more than 15,000 young adults of the opportunity to serve their communities as an

AmeriCorps member and earn an education

benefit. The proposed rescission would eliminate funding for the opportunity for thousands of school children to learn about responsibility to their community for the first

time.

This program has a proven track record.

For example, AmeriCorps members have already reclaimed recreation areas in inner

cities from gangs, and thousands of low-income and migrant children have received

proper immunizations to protect their

health. AmeriCorps members also have

helped raise the spelling scores and reading

levels of rural disadvantaged children, built

homes for ‘‘working-poor’’ families, and provided disaster relief assistance to victims

throughout the western part of the country.

The Administration strongly believes that

national service is a key to solving problems

inside America’s communities. The Senate is

urged to restore full funding for this important program.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS (CDFI) FUND

The proposed rescission of $124 million contained in the Committee-reported bill would

terminate this program. Without this funding, in FYs 1995 and 1996 the CDFI Fund

would not be able to provide: $10 million in

direct loan subsidies to support over $23 million of direct loans to CDFIs; $70.5 million in

grants, technical, assistance, and other financial assistance to CDFIs; and $39 million

in community development incentives for

depository institutions. The Fund’s investments in CDFIs, banks, and thrifts would leverage an estimated $500 million in investments, loans, and financial services in the

country’s most distressed communities. The

Senate is urged to restore this funding.

WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

The Committee-reported bill would reduce

funds available for the Special Supplemental

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC) by $35 million. The WIC program provides nutritious supplemental foods

to low-income pregnant, post-partum, and

breastfeeding women, and to infants and

children up to their fifth birthday. The Committee’s action would result in 840,000 fewer

food packages for women, infants, and children. Jeopardizing the health and welfare of

these mothers and children cannot be justified.

HEAD START

The Administration objects to the Senate

action that would reduce funding for Head

Start by $42 million. At the FY 1995 estimated per-child cost of $4,530, $42 million

would be sufficient to provide Head Start

services to approximately 9,300 children.

HHS would make every effort to minimize

the number of children and families who

could potentially be affected by a mid-year

funding reduction. However, at a minimum,

the statutorily-mandated effort to serve

children under age three would be sharply reduced, with more than 3,000 children not receiving Head Start services. The rescission

could also eliminate all new funding for the

statutorily-mandated initiative to enhance

the transition of Head Start children into

the public schools.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The Committee-reported bill would reduce

the funding for Goals 2000 by $68 million,

which would greatly diminish support to

States and communities for raising academic

standards and improving their local schools.

The Committee-reported bill also proposes to

cut the Education for the Disadvantaged program by $80 million, which would reduce

services to educationally disadvantaged children. The Administration is also opposed to

the $95 million reduction proposed for the direct student loan program.

SUMMER JOBS

The Summer Jobs Program provides meaningful work experience for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth

who might otherwise not have any opportunity to learn necessary job skills and

workplace behaviors during crucial formative years. The Administration is pleased

that the Committee has not reduced funding

for this program for the summer of 1995.

However, the Administration remains concerned that the rescission contained in the

Committee-reported bill would eliminate

funding for the Summer Youth Employment

program in the summer of 1996, thereby

eliminating job opportunities for about

615,000 disadvantaged youth. The Administration strongly believes that improving the

job prospects of at-risk youth is an important element in a broader strategy to ensure

employment opportunities for all Americans

and a vibrant, productive workforce for U.S.

business.

JOB CORPS

The Administration objects to the Senate

Committee action that would rescind $46

million for Job Corps. This action would halt

expansion of a youth training program with

a track record of improving the employment

and earnings of poor youth. The Committee

action would eliminate funds to continue

work on the eight new Job Corps centers

that were launched with previous years’ appropriations. Work is underway on these

eight centers, which would create 3,200 new

training slots for about 4,700 severely disadvantaged youth each year. In addition, the

Senate Committee action would eliminate

funds to initiate four new Job Corps centers

in 1995, which would boost capacity by another 1,600 slots.

VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG ABUSE CONTROL

The Administration is concerned that the

Committee has chosen to rescind nearly $100

million in funding for the Safe and Drug

Free School Program at the same time that

every poll shows that crime and school safety are a major concern of Americans. This

program is the centerpiece of the Administration’s fight against the use of drugs and

stimulants by an alarming increasing number of our youth.

The Administration opposes the Committee’s recommendation to rescind $53 million

for violent crime prevention and drug control initiatives—$39 million of which is funded through the Violent Crime Reduction

Trust Fund (VCRTF). Of the total amount

rescinded, nearly $27 million would come

from the Drug Courts program, which will

provide drug treatment and real first-time

drug offenders. Another $11 million would

come from the Family and Community Endeavor Schools (FACES) program, which

seeks to provide healthy alternatives to the

streets for youth. All grant funding for the

Ounce of Prevention Council would be rescinded. Another $13 million (non-VCRTF

funding) would come from Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA) block grants, which would reduce

States’ abilities to offer drug abuse treatment.

FEMA DISASTER RELIEF

P.L. 102–229, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, contained

a special provision on emergency designations under the Budget Enforcement Act

(BEA) for FEMA Stafford Act activities.

That provision specifies that all appropriations for disaster assistance in excess of the

then historical annual average obligation of

$320 million (or the amount of the President’s budget request, whichever is lower)

‘‘shall be considered as ‘emergency requirements’ pursuant to’’ the BEA, and ‘‘such

amounts shall hereafter be so designated.’’

This provision is permanent law applying in

FY 1993 and ‘‘thereafter,’’ and expressly applies ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision

of law.’’ In FY 1995, the President requested

and the Congress did in fact appropriate $320

million for FEMA disaster activities.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has decided to disregard this

provision of law and to include this emergency funding in a controversial rescission

bill, which will inevitably lead to delay.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE

The Committee-reported bill would threaten the well-being of our Nation’s most needy

and vulnerable citizens and would wreak

havoc upon the stability of our Nation’s

most distressed communities. The draconian

cuts targeted towards programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

would deny help to thousands of needy, lowincome households, including many homeless families. Hundreds of communities

would lose money that they have counted on

for critical community needs such as housing rehabilitation.

TIMBER SALES

The Administration is opposed to a provision of the Committee-reported bill that

would too broadly define ‘‘salvage timber

sales’’ to include sales of primarily healthy

trees, supersede the otherwise applicable environmental and land management statutes,

and restrict citizens’ access to the courts.

The Administration remains steadfastly

committed to the Northwest Forest Plan,

which establishes a careful balance between

sustainable timber harvest and sound ecosystem management.

The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce last month announced a comprehensive plan to accelerate

timber salvage sales. Nevertheless, the Administration is concerned that the current

timber salvage program does not meet expectations. In addition to the measures already

underway at these agencies to accelerate

timber salvage sales, we stand ready to work

with the Congress to find appropriate, productive solutions to this pressing national

problem that would not result in a return to

gridlock.

DAVIS-BACON PROVISION

The Administration opposes a provision in

the bill that would exempt any contract associated with the construction of facilities

for the National Museum of the American Indian from the Davis-Bacon Act. The Act requires that all Federally-funded or Federally-assisted construction be covered by the

Davis-Bacon Act. An exception in this case

would be counter the goals of the Act.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This Administration remains firmly committed to increasing the Nation’s productivity and raising living standards by investing

in science and technology. These investment

will lead to a healthy, educated public; job

creation and economic growth; world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; and harnessed information technology.

The rescissions proposed by the Committee

for many of the programs in the Department

of Commerce would severely threaten the

United States’ standing with respect to technology advancements and competitiveness.
H 5344 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

The proposed rescission of funds for the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) contained in the

Committee-reported bill would reduce the

number of new centers established from 36 to

10. This would result in reduced access top

state-of-the-art manufacturing technology

and techniques by U.S. manufacturers—a

key component of the U.S. economy.

The proposed $19.5 million rescission of

funds for laboratory research at NIST would

have a real impact on industry’s ability to

compete in both emerging and mature markets. NIST laboratories develop and deliver

measurement techniques and services that

provide a common language needed by industry in all stages of commerce. The rescissions would result in the elimination of new

starts in the areas of Advanced Manufacturing, Biotechnology, Semiconductor Metrology, and Information Infrastructure standards development resulting in the diminished competitive posture of U.S. industry.

Reductions are also proposed by the Committee for the Department of Energy’s

(DOE’s) solar, renewable energy, and conservation research programs. Such reductions would threaten our national effort to

implement fully the Energy Policy Act of

1992 and the Climate Change Action Plan.

Reduction to the DOE science budget also

would adversely impact climate change,

human genome, and neutron research. The

additional reductions to the Environmental

Management program would impede progress

at several of the Department’s cleanup sites.

The Committee’s proposed rescission of

$12.5 million for the National Biological

Service in the Department of the Interior

would severely hamper the Service’s ability

to provide basic scientific information to the

land managing bureaus within the Department, including programs in the Pacific

Northwest. This rescission would force the

Service to consider closing the Great Lakes

Science Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Also, certain laboratory facilities would be

considered for closure, and joint State

projects underway in more than 30 States

would be reduced.

The Committee has proposed rescinding $42

million of upgrades to the national transonic

wind tunnel. These upgrades have been

planned for many years and are critical to

maintaining the performance of these tunnels. The wind tunnel complex has contributed to the development of almost every

U.S-developed military and civil aircraft.

Failure to modernize this facility will increase the delay in critical test data. These

upgrades are needed now and are unrelated

to the development of a new wind tunnel facility.

The Senate is urged not to imperil our Nation’s standing on the technology frontier.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Committee-reported bill does not appropriate the requested $672 million emergency supplemental for assessed U.N. peacekeeping costs that will accrue during FY

1995. The United States is bound by treaty to

pay these costs. Failure to pay them by the

end of the fiscal year will imperil the continuity of U.N. missions in regions of great

importance to the U.S. national security and

foreign policy interests. Rather than approve

the requested supplemental, the Committee

has proposed to rescind peacekeeping funds.

DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

While an improvement over the Housepassed bill, the rescission of $0.8 billion in

funds to help municipalities comply with

Safe Drinking Water Act requirements contained in the Committee-reported bill would

still seriously exacerbate local financing

problems. Municipalities need almost $9 billion in capital costs to comply with existing

regulations and additional billions to comply

with future rules needed to prevent problems

such as the cryptosporidium outbreak in

Milwaukee in 1993 that killed 100 people and

caused illness in another 400,000.

Most affected by this rescission would be

the 27 million people who get their water

from a system that has violated drinking

water standards. If Congress fails to authorize the drinking water state revolving fund

program, these funds can be used without

further Congressional action to address the

$137 billion in wastewater construction

needs.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

AUTOMATION INVESTMENT

The Committee bill reduces funding for

SSA computer systems by $88 million, thus

eliminating all second-year funding for

SSA’s multi-year automation investment.

This reduction would lead to deterioration in

service by not allowing for the purchase of

new computer equipment as existing equipment wears out and customer demands increase. The funds proposed for rescission are

already programmed to support contract

awards for quantities of computers supported

by the Committee and the General Accounting Office.

The Administration notes the Committee’s

concern about the total number of computers SSA plans to acquire over a five-year period. Under the current SSA plan, the level

of funding provided in FYs 1994 and 1995

funds the installation of less than one-third

of the total number of workstations planned.

The Administration believes that the Committee’s concern with out-year plans would

be more appropriately addressed in relation

to out-year funding.

COAST GUARD

The Administration opposes the Committee’s action to reduce Coast Guard operating

expenses while supplementing funding for expenses related to operations in Haiti and

Cuba. Offsets to pay for those activities

deemed an emergency by the Administration

are counterproductive. Additional cuts

would negate the effects of the supplemental, thereby rendering the Coast Guard

less able to provide the level of service the

public expects.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

The Committee bill would rescind $140 million from the Base Realignment and Closure

accounts. This action would slow local communities’ productive reuse of base closure

property by delaying the departure of military units and by limiting funding for environmental restoration. Making property

available for economic redevelopment is a

key part of the Administration’s Five Point

Plan for assisting base closure communities.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee bill would rescind $69 million from the NATO Infrastructure account.

This action could undermine existing NATO

Infrastructure agreements and treaty commitments and frustrate our efforts to increase the burdensharing contributions of

our allies. All of the FY 1995 appropriations

for NATO Infrastructure have been obligated

or committed for specific NATO construction projects, which would have to be terminated—with potential termination penalties—if the rescission were enacted. Furthermore, such a rescission would set a

precedent for other NATO nations to withdraw their support form the NATO Infrastructure budget.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.

Hon. MARK O. HATFIELD,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this

letter is to provide the Administration’s

views on H.R. 1158, the supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill, as passed by

the House. As the Senate develops its version

of the bill, your consideration of the Administration’s views would be appreciated.

The Administration strongly opposes the

House-passed bill. We believe that it unnecessarily cuts valuable, proven programs that

educate our children and aid the disadvantaged, including the National Service program. The Administration also opposes reductions in programs that were established

to ensure our Nation’s role in the advancement of technology. Further, we strongly oppose a provision in the bill that would prohibit implementation of the Executive Order

on striker replacements. Based on all of

these considerations, if the President were

presented a bill containing these provisions,

he would veto the bill.

BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT EMERGENCY

DESIGNATION

As the President stated in his February 14,

1995, letter to the Speaker, the Administration is proud of its record for reducing the

deficit while providing prompt assistance to

the victims of natural disasters. The Budget

Enforcement Act, signed by President Bush,

established the authority for the President

and Congress to exempt certain spending

from the statutory caps, specifically for the

purpose of meeting unanticipated emergency

requirements. This joint designation by the

President and the Congress has been used

over the last four years to provide critical

assistance in response to earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, extreme cold and agricultural

disasters, and for other purposes.

DEFICIT REDUCTION

The Administration remains firmly committed to deficit reduction. In 1993, the Administration worked with the Congress to

enact the largest deficit reduction package

in history. We cut Federal spending by $255

billion over five years, cut taxes for 40 million low- and moderate-income Americans,

and made 90 percent of small businesses eligible for tax relief, while increasing income

tax rates only on the wealthiest 1.2 percent

of Americans. As we placed a tight ‘‘freeze’’

on overall discretionary spending at the FY

1993 levels, we shifted spending toward investments in human and physical capital

that will help secure our future.

This Administration’s economic plan

helped bring the deficit down from $290 billion in FY 1992—to $203 billion in FY 1994, to

a projected $191 billion this year—providing

three straight years of deficit reduction for

the first time since Harry Truman was President.

We believe that we can address the issue of

deficit reduction and provide for the Middle

Class Bill of Rights without putting low-income families at risk. The Administration

does not believe that sound programs, particularly those aimed at the disadvantaged

and those that will ensure our Nation’s preeminent standing in science and technology,

should be cut. The Administration would be

particularly troubled if such cuts were made

to finance a tax cut for higher-income taxpayers. In light of the House Budget Committee action last week, it is clear that savings generated by the House version of

H.R. 1158 are intended to be used for a tax

cut for higher-income taxpayers.

In the FY 1996 Budget, the President has

proposed significant rescissions for FY 1995

and additional program terminations in FY
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5345

1996 for numerous low-priority programs. In

contrast, the House-passed bill would impose

severe reductions on a number of high-priority programs. These cuts would have a particularly harmful effect on our Nation’s children by cutting funding for National Service,

Summer Jobs, WIC, and housing for families.

Many of the cuts are shortsighted—reducing

funding for education, for advanced technology programs that are critical to our Nation’s future, and eliminating funding for the

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, which would be instrumental in leveraging investments in our

country’s most distressed communities.

Other cuts would adversely affect the health

of Americans by cutting funding for safe

drinking water and violent crime prevention

and anti-drug programs. In its consideration

of the bill, we urge the Senate to restore

these cuts.

NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAM

The proposed $416 million rescission for the

Corporation for National and Community

Service would virtually terminate the President’s National Service program. Remaining

funds would provide only 4,000 of the proposed 33,000 opportunities for young adults to

serve their communities as AmeriCorps

members and earn an education award. The

proposed rescission would eliminate funding

for thousands of school children to learn responsibility to their community for the first

time. In addition, over 1,000 young persons

currently serving in communities hard hit

by defense downsizing would be sent home

immediately, and their camps—established

on downsized military bases—would be

closed.

This program has a proven track record.

For example, AmeriCorps members have already reclaimed recreation areas in inner

cities from gangs, and thousands of low-income and migrant children have received

proper immunizations to protect their

health. AmeriCorps members also have

helped raise the spelling scores and reading

levels of rural disadvantaged children, built

homes for ‘‘working-poor’’ families, and provide disaster relief assistance to victims

throughout the western part of the country.

The Administration strongly believes that

national service is a key to solving problems

inside America’s communities. The Senate is

urged to restore full funding for this important program.

STRIKER REPLACEMENT

The Administration opposes a provision in

the House-passed bill that would prohibit the

Executive Branch from using FY 1995 funds

to issue, implement, administer, or enforce

any Executive Order or other rule or order

that prohibits Federal contracts with companies that hire permanent replacements for

striking employees. This provision would impinge upon the Executive Branch’s ability to

ensure a stable supply of quality goods and

services for the government’s programs. The

use or the threat to use permanent replacement workers destroys opportunities for cooperative and stable labor-management relations.

TIMBER SALVAGE SALES

The Administration objects to a provision

that would mandate a minimum level of timber salvage sales from Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management lands. The Department of Justice has advised that enactment of this amendment would likely result

in renewed judicial review of the President’s

Forest Plan and could reduce timber, grazing, and mining activities in the West. The

Administration is already taking steps to restore and sustain significant levels of timber

harvest in the immediate future. In addition,

the Administration will shortly announce

changes in the consultation process designed

to expedite review of timber salvage sales as

well as other actions to increase timber harvest, in full compliance with environmental

laws.

FEMA EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

The Administration is disappointed that

the House has chosen to include urgently

needed FEMA emergency supplemental funds

in this controversial bill. This could cause an

unnecessary delay in assistance to victims of

natural disasters. If action on the Administration’s request is delayed, FEMA will, beginning in May, be unable to allocate funds

to meet any new disaster requirements, unless money reserved for the 40 states currently receiving disaster assistance is cut.

Additional Administration concerns with

the House-passed bill are contained in the

enclosure. We look forward to working with

the Senate to address our mutual concerns.

Sincerely,

ALICE M. RIVLIN,

Director.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS—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 (AS PASSED BY THE

HOUSE)

FEMA DISASTER RELIEF

P.L. 102–229, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, contained

a special provision on emergency designations under the Budget Enforcement Act

(BEA) for FEMA Stafford Act activities.

That provision specifies that all appropriations for disaster assistance in excess of the

then historical annual average obligation of

$320 million (or the amount of the President’s budget request, whichever is lower)

‘‘shall be considered as ‘emergency requirements’ pursuant to’’ the BEA, and ‘‘such

amounts shall hereafter be so designated.’’

This provision is permanent law applying in

FY 1993 and ‘‘thereafter,’’ and expressly applies ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision

of law.’’ In FY 1995, the President requested

and the Congress did in fact appropriate $320

million for FEMA disaster activities.

The Administration is disappointed that

the House has decided to disregard this provision of law and to include this emergency

funding in a controversial rescission bill,

which will inevitably lead to delay.

SUMMER JOBS

The Summer Jobs Program provides meaningful work experience for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth

who might otherwise not have any opportunity to learn necessary job skills and

workplace behaviors during crucial formative years. The rescission contained in the

House-passed bill would eliminate funding

for the Summer Youth Employment program

in each of the summers of 1995 and 1996,

thereby eliminating job opportunities for

about 615,000 disadvantaged youth in each of

these summers. The Administration strongly

believes that improving the job prospects of

at-risk youth is an important element in a

broader strategy to ensure employment opportunities for all Americans and a vibrant,

productive workforce for U.S. business.

WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

The House-passed bill would reduce funds

available for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC) by $25 million. The WIC program provides nutritious supplemental foods

to low-income pregnant, post-partum, and

breastfeeding women, and to infants and

children up to their fifth birthday. The

House’s action would result in 600,000 fewer

food packages for women, infants, and children. Jeopardizing the health and welfare of

these mothers and children cannot be justified.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The House-passed bill would reduce by over

one-third ($174 million) the funding for Goals

2000, which would greatly diminish support

to States and communities for raising academic standards and improving their local

schools. The House-passed bill also proposes

to cut the Education for the Disadvantaged

program by $140 million, which would reduce

services to educationally disadvantaged children. The House-passed bill’s sharp reduction

in funding for education technology programs ($65 million) would enable fewer local

communities to put state-of-the-art tools of

learning in classrooms where they are most

needed to prepare our students for the future.

VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG ABUSE CONTROL

The Administration is concerned that the

House has chosen to rescind nearly $472 million in funding for the Safe and Drug Free

School Program at the same time that every

poll shows that crime and school safety are

a major concern of Americans. This program

is the centerpiece of the Administration’s

fight against the use of drugs and stimulants

by an alarmingly increasing number of our

youth.

The Administration opposes the House’s

recommendation to rescind $65 million for

violent crime prevention and drug control

initiatives funded through the Violent Crime

Reduction Trust Fund. Of this amount, nearly $28 million would come from the Drug

Courts program, which will provide drug

treatment and real opportunities for rehabilitation for non-violent, first-time drug offenders. Another $37 million would come

from the Family and Community Endeavor

Schools (FACES) program, which seeks to

provide healthy alternatives to the streets

for youth.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This Administration remains firmly committed to increasing the Nation’s productivity and raising living standards by investing

in science and technology. These investments will lead to a healthy, educated public; job creation and economic growth; world

leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; and harnessed information technology. The rescissions proposed by the

House for many of the programs in the Department of Commerce would severely

threaten the United States’ standing with

respect to technology advancements and

competitiveness.

The proposed rescission of funds for the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) contained in the

House-passed bill would reduce the number

of new centers established from 36 to 10. This

would result in reduced access to state-ofthe-art manufacturing technology and techniques by U.S. manufacturers—a key component of the U.S. economy.

The $30 million rescission included in the

House-passed bill for the National Information Infrastructure Grants program would

eliminate grants to about 70–90 schools, hospitals, non-profits, and State and local governments. An additional rescission of $34

million is contained in the Senate version of

H.R. 889. These two rescissions would eliminate all funding for this program. This action would decrease the credibility of the

program as a funding source and thus discourage private sector matching grants to

program applicants. The Senate is urged to

rescind funds from lower-priority projects as

set forth in the President’s budget.
H 5346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Reductions are also proposed by the House

for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)

solar, renewable energy, and conservation research programs. Such reductions would

threaten our national effort to implement

fully the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the

Climate Change Action Plan. Reduction to

the DOE science budget also would adversely

impact climate change, human genome, and

neutron research. In addition, the $45 million

reduction to the Environmental Management program would impede progress at several of the Department’s cleanup sites.

Coming this late in the fiscal year, the

House’s proposed rescission of $16.8 million

for the National Biological Service in the

Department of the Interior (10 percent of the

operating budget) will force the Service to

consider closing one or more of the four

major Centers located in Lafayette, Louisiana; Seattle, Washington; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Anchorage, Alaska; as well as several other laboratories. This would severely

hamper the Service’s ability to provide basic

scientific information to the land managing

bureaus within the Department, including

programs in the Pacific Northwest, and

would eliminate joint State projects underway in more than 30 States.

The Senate is urged not to imperil our Nation’s standing on the technology frontier.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE

The House-passed bill would threaten the

well-being of our Nation’s most needy and

vulnerable citizens and would wreak havoc

upon the stability of our Nation’s most distressed communities. The draconian cuts

targeted towards programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

would deny help to 63,000 needy, low-income

households, including many homeless families. The bill could also prevent another

24,000 homeless families from moving to

transitional or permanent housing during

this fiscal year. Hundreds of communities

would lose money that they have counted on

for critical community needs such as housing rehabilitation and social services for the

elderly.

In addition, the House’s rescission of all

FY 1995 funding for the Federal Government’s primary rural multi-family rental

housing direct loan program (section 515)

would put thousands of rural residents living

in existing Federal multi-family projects at

risk and jeopardize the Government’s investment in these projects. Many of the Department of Agriculture’s projects need to be rehabilitated and, without the FY 1995 funding,

would be in danger of being closed.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS (CDFI) FUND

The proposed rescission of $124 million contained in the House-passed bill would terminate this program. Without this funding, in

FYs 1995 and 1996 the CDFI Fund would not

be able to provide: $10 million in direct loan

subsidies to support over $23 million of direct

loans to CDFIs; $70.5 million in grants, technical assistance, and other financial assistance to CDFIs; and $39 million in community

development incentives for depository institutions. The Fund’s investments in CDFIs,

banks, and thrifts would leverage an estimated $500 million in investments, loans,

and financial services in the country’s most

distressed communities. The Senate is urged

to restore this funding.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The House-passed bill does not appropriate

the requested $672 million emergency supplemental for assessed U.N. peacekeeping costs

that will accrue during FY 1995. The United

States is bound by treaty to pay these costs.

Failure to pay them by the end of the fiscal

year will imperil the continuity of U.N. missions in regions of great importance to the

U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Rather than approve the requested

supplemental, the House has proposed to rescind peacekeeping funds.

The House-passed bill provides only $50

million of the $275 million requested for Jordan debt forgiveness. This debt forgiveness is

linked to the historic steps taken by King

Hussein to conclude a peace agreement with

Israel, an act that markedly improved prospects for overall peace in the region and that

involved considerable risk for King Hussein.

We urge the Congress to provide for Jordan

debt forgiveness in H.R. 889 as it passed the

Senate in support of the hopeful developments in this region.

HIGHWAYS—EMERGENCY RELIEF

The House-passed bill would eliminate $351

million in funding previously appropriated in

response to the Northridge earthquake and

other disasters. Over $50 million of this

amount is expected to be needed just to meet

claims for flood damage in California and

Washington. In addition to leaving the Department of Transportation unable to meet

the funding needs of existing disasters, this

rescission would eliminate the Department’s

ability to respond promptly to future disasters. Instead of recommending rescission of

these needed funds, the Administration urges

the Senate to cancel unobligated balances of

highway demonstration projects, as proposed

in the President’s FY 1996 Budget.

DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

The rescission of $1.3 billion in funds to

help municipalities comply with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements contained in the

House-passed bill would seriously exacerbate

local financing problems. Municipalities

need almost $9 billion in capital costs to

comply with existing regulations and additional billions to comply with future rules

needed to prevent problems such as the

cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee in

1993 that killed 100 people and caused illness

in another 400,000.

Most affected by this rescission would be

the 27 million people who get their water

from a system that has violated drinking

water standards. If Congress fails to authorize the drinking water state revolving fund

program, these funds can be used without

further Congressional action to address the

$137 billion in wastewater construction

needs.

COAST GUARD

The Administration opposes the House action to reduce Coast Guard operating expenses while supplementing funding for expenses related to operations in Haiti and

Cuba. Offsets to pay for those activities

deemed an emergency by the Administration

are counterproductive. Additional cuts

would negate the effects of the supplemental, thereby rendering the Coast Guard

less able to provide the level of service the

public expects.

CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

The Administration believes that the

House’s action to reduce funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) by a

total of 23 percent from FY 1995 to FY 1997 is

excessive and shortsighted. The Administration is committed to providing equal access

to educational opportunities, particularly

for young children, regardless of income or

geographic location.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

The House-passed bill would rescind $19.6

million from the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration. This is a 6.3 percent

reduction in OSHA funding and effectively a

12.6 percent reduction since it comes so late

in the fiscal year. The rescission would have

a dramatic impact on OSHA’s ability to fulfill its mission to protect workers and on the

Administration’s efforts to make the agency

more effective. This rescission would hinder

OSHA’s compliance assistance programs and

education and training initiatives, as well as

enforcement, resulting in an estimated 6,300

additional preventable injuries.

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

This Statement of Administration Policy

provides the Administration’s views on the

supplemental appropriations and rescissions

bill as reported by the House Appropriations

Committee.

The Administration strongly opposes this

bill in its present form. We believe that it

unnecessarily cuts valuable, proven programs that educate our children and aid the

disadvantaged. The Administration also opposes cuts for programs that were established to ensure our Nation’s role in the advancement of technology. We also strongly

oppose a provision in the bill that would

upset the balance contained in current law

concerning Federal funding of abortions for

the victims of rape and incest and a provision that would prohibit implementation of

the Executive Order on striker replacements.

Based on all of these considerations, if the

President were presented a bill containing

these provisions, the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget would recommend

that he veto the bill.

As the President said in his February 14,

1995, letter, the Administration is proud of

its record for reducing the deficit while providing prompt assistance to the victims of

natural disasters. The Budget Enforcement

Act, signed by President Bush, established

the authority for the President and Congress

to exempt certain spending from statutory

caps, specifically for the purpose of meeting

emergency, unanticipated requirements.

This joint designation by the President and

the Congress has been used over the last four

years to provide critical assistance in response to earthquakes, hurricanes, floods,

extreme cold and agricultural disasters, and

for other purposes.

The Administration remains firmly committed to deficit reduction. In 1993, the Administration worked with the Congress to

enact the largest deficit reduction package

in history. We cut Federal spending $255 billion over five years, cut taxes for 40 million

low- and moderate-income Americans, and

made 90 percent of small businesses eligible

for tax relief, while increasing income tax

rates only on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of

Americans. As we placed a tight ‘‘freeze’ on

overall discretionary spending at the FY 1993

levels, we shifted spending toward investment in human and physical capital that

will help secure our future.

This Administration’s economic plan

helped bring the deficit down from $290 billion in FY 1992, to $203 billion in FY 1994, to

a projected $193 billion this year—providing

three straight years of deficit reduction for

the first time since Harry Truman was President.

We believe that we can address the issue of

deficit reduction and provide for the Middle

Class Bill of Rights without putting low-income families at risk. The Administration

does not believe that sound programs, particularly those aimed at the disadvantaged

and those that will ensure our Nation’s

standing in areas of science and technology,

should be cut. It would be particularly unwise to make such cuts to finance a tax cut

for higher-income taxpayers.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5347

In the FY 1996 Budget, the President has

proposed significant rescissions for FY 1995

and additional program terminations in FY

1996 for numerous low-priority programs. In

contrast, this bill would impose severe reductions on a number of high-priority programs. These cuts would have a particularly

harmful effect on our Nation’s children by

cutting funding for National Service, Summer Jobs, and WIC. Many of the cuts are

shortsighted, reducing funding for education,

for advanced technology programs that are

critical to our Nation’s future, and eliminating funding for the Community Development

Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, which

would be instrumental in leveraging investments in our country’s most distressed communities. Other cuts would adversely affect

the health of Americans by cutting safe

drinking water funding and violent crime

prevention programs.

The Administration is opposed to an

amendment that was added by the Committee that would allow states to decide to stop

using public funds to pay for abortions in

cases of rape and incest. The President believes that abortion should be safe, legal, and

rare. The Administration is committed to

ensuring that women who are victims of rape

and incest have the right to choose abortion

as an option. A woman should not be precluded from choosing this option if she is

poor.

The Administration opposes a provision in

the bill that would prohibit the Executive

Branch from using FY 1995 funds to issue,

implement, administer, or enforce any Executive Order or other rule or order that prohibits Federal contracts with companies that

hire permanent replacements for striking

employees. This provision would impinge

upon the Executive Branch’s ability to ensure a stable supply of quality goods and

services for the government’s programs.

The Administration objects to an amendment that was added by the Committee that

would mandate a minimum level of timber

salvage sales from Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The Department of Justice has advised that enactment

of this amendment would likely result in renewed judicial review of the President’s Forest Plan and could reduce timber, grazing,

and mining activities in the West. The Administration is already taking steps to restore and sustain significant levels of timber

harvest in the immediate future. In addition,

the Administration will shortly announce

changes in the consultation process designed

to expedite review of timber salvage sales as

well as other actions to increase timber harvest, in full compliance with environmental

laws.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has chosen to include urgently needed FEMA emergency supplemental funds in this controversial bill. This

could cause an unnecessary delay in assistance to victims of natural disasters. If action

on the Administration’s request is delayed,

FEMA will, beginning in May, be unable to

allocate funds to meet any new disaster requirements, unless money reserved for the 40

states currently receiving disaster assistance

is cut.

Additional Administration concerns with

the Committee-reported bill are contained in

the attachment.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS AS REPORTED BY THE

HOUSE FULL COMMITTEE

FEMA DISASTER RELIEF

P.L. 102–229, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, contained

a special provision on emergency designations under the Budget Enforcement Act

(BEA) for FEMA Stafford Act activities.

That provision specifies that all appropriations for disaster assistance in excess of the

then historical annual average obligation of

$320 million (or the amount of the President’s budget request, whichever is lower)

‘‘shall be considered as ‘emergency requirements’ pursuant to’’ the BEA, and ‘‘such

amounts shall hereafter be so designated.’’

This provision is permanent law applying in

FY 1993 and ‘‘thereafter,’’ and expressly applies ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision

of law.’’ In FY 1995, the President requested

and the Congress did in fact appropriate $320

million for FEMA disaster activities.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has decided to disregard this

provision of law and to include this emergency funding in a controversial rescission

bill, which will inevitably lead to delay.

SUMMER JOBS

The Summer Jobs Program provides meaningful work experience for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth

who might otherwise not have any opportunity to learn necessary job skills and

workplace behaviors during crucial formative years. The proposed rescission would

eliminate funding for the Summer Youth

Employment program in each of the summers of 1995 and 1996, thereby eliminating

job opportunities for about 615,000 disadvantaged youth in each of these summers. The

Administration strongly believes that improving the job prospects of at-risk youth is

an important element in a broader strategy

to ensure employment opportunities for all

Americans and a vibrant, productive

workforce for U.S. business. The House is

urged to restore funding for this important

initiative.

NATIONAL SERVICE

The proposed $210 million rescission for the

Corporation for National and Community

Service would reduce significantly the President’s National Service program, depriving

more than 15,000 young adults of the opportunity to serve their communities as an

AmeriCorps member and earn an education

benefit. The proposed rescission would eliminate funding for the opportunity for thousands of school children to learn about responsibility to their community for the first

time.

This program has a proven track record.

For example, AmeriCorps members have already reclaimed recreation areas in inner

cities from gangs, and thousands of low-income and migrant children have received

proper immunizations to protect their

health.

The Administration strongly believes that

national service is a key to solving problems

inside America’s communities. The House is

urged to restore funding for this important

program.

WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

The bill would reduce funds available for

the Special Supplemental nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) by

$25 million. The WIC program provides nutritious supplemental foods to low-income

pregnant, post-partum, and breastfeeding

women, and to infants and children up to

their fifth birthday. The Committee’s action

would result in 600,000 fewer food packages

for women, infants, and children. Jeopardizing the health and welfare of these mothers

and children cannot be justified.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The bill would reduce by over one-third

($174 million) the funding for Goals 2000,

which would greatly diminish support to

States and communities for raising academic

standards and improving their local schools.

The bill also proposes to cut the Education

for the Disadvantaged program by $105 million, which would reduce services to educationally disadvantaged children. The bill’s

sharp reduction in funding for education

technology program ($65 million) would enable fewer local communities to put state-ofthe-art tools of learning in classrooms where

they are most needed to prepare our students

for the future.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This Administration remains firmly committed to increasing the Nation’s productivity and raising living standards by investing

in science and technology. These investments will lead to a healthy, educated public; job creation and economic growth; world

leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; and harnessed information technology. The rescissions proposed in this bill

for many of the programs in the Department

of Commerce would severely threaten the

United States’ standing with respect to technology advancements and competitiveness.

The proposed rescission of funds for the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) would reduce the

number of new centers established from 36 to

10. This would result in reduced access to

state-of-the-art manufacturing technology

and techniques by U.S. manufacturers—a

key component of the U.S. economy.

The $30 million rescission proposed for the

National Information Infrastructure Grants

program would eliminate grants to about 70–

90 schools, hospitals, non-profits, and state

and local governments. This action would decrease the credibility of the program as a

funding source and thus discourage private

sector matching grants to program applicants.

Reductions are also proposed for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) solar, renewable

energy, and conservation research programs.

Such reductions would threaten our national

effort to implement fully the Energy Policy

Act of 1992 and the Climate Change Action

Plan. Reduction to the DOE science budget

also would adversely impact climate change,

human genome, and neutron research. In addition, the $45 million reduction to the Environmental Management program would impede progress at several of the Department’s

cleanup sites.

The proposed rescission of $16.8 million, or

10 percent of the operating budget of the National Biological Service in the Department

of the Interior, this late in the fiscal year,

will force the Service to consider closing one

or more of the four major Centers located in

Lafayette, Louisiana; Seattle, Washington;

Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Anchorage, Alaska; as well as several other laboratories.

This would severely hamper the Service’s

ability to provide basic scientific information the land managing bureaus within the

Department, including programs in the Pacific Northwest, and would eliminate joint

State projects underway in more than 30

States.

The House is urged not to imperil our Nation’s standing on the technology frontier.

VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG ABUSE CONTROL

The Administration is concerned that the

Committee has chosen to rescind nearly $482

million in funding for the Safe and Drug

Free School Program at the same time that

every poll shows that crime and school safety are a major concern of Americans. This

program is the centerpiece of the Administration’s fight against the use of drugs and

stimulants by an alarmingly increasing

number of our youth.

The Administration opposes the Committee’s recommendation to rescind $65 million

for violent crime prevention and drug control initiatives funded through the Violent

Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Of this

amount, nearly $28 million would come from
H 5348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

the Drug Courts program, which will provide

drug treatment and real opportunities for rehabilitation for non-violent, first-time drug

offenders. Another $37 million would come

from the Family and Community Endeavor

Schools (FACES) program, which seeks to

provide healthy alternatives to the streets

for youth.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE

As currently drafted, this bill would

threaten the well-being of our Nation’s most

needy and vulnerable citizens and would

wreak havoc upon the stability of our Nation’s most distressed communities. The draconian cuts targeted towards programs of

the Department of Housing and Urban Development would deny help to 63,000 needy, lowincome households, including many homeless families. The bill would also prevent another 24,000 homeless families from moving

to transitional or permanent housing during

this fiscal year. Hundreds of communities

would lose money that they have counted on

for critical community needs such as housing rehabilitation and social services for the

elderly. The House is urged to restore funding to these vital areas.

In addition, the rescission of all FY 1995

funding for the Federal Government’s primary rural multi-family rental housing direct loan program (section 515) would put

thousands of rural residents living in existing Federal multi-family projects at risk and

jeopardize the Government’s investment in

these projects. Many of the Department of

Agriculture’s projects need to be rehabilitated and, without the FY 1995 funding,

would be in danger of being closed.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS (CDFI) FUND

The proposed rescission of $124 million

would terminate this program. Without this

funding, the CDFI Fund would not be able to

provide: $10 million in direct loan subsidies

to support over $23 million of direct loans to

CDFIs; $50 million in grants, technical assistance, and other financial assistance to

CDFIs; and $20 million in community development incentives for depository institutions. The Fund’s investments in CDFIs,

banks, and thrifts would leverage an estimated $500 million in investments, loans,

and financial services in the country’s most

distressed communities. The House is urged

to restore this funding.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The bill does not appropriate the requested

$672 million emergency supplemental for assessed U.N. peacekeeping costs that will accrue during FY 1995. The United States is

bound by treaty to pay these costs. Failure

to pay them by the end of the fiscal year will

imperil the continuity of U.N. missions in regions of great importance to the U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.

Rather than approve the requested supplemental, the Committee has rescinded peacekeeping funds.

This bill provides only $50 million of the

$275 million requested for Jordan debt forgiveness. This debt forgiveness is linked to

the historic steps taken by King Hussein to

conclude a peace agreement with Israel, an

act that markedly improved prospects for

overall peace in the region and that involved

considerable risk for King Hussein. We urge

the House to provide the requested funds for

Jordan debt forgiveness in support of the

hopeful developments in this region.

HIGHWAYS—EMERGENCY RELIEF

This bill would eliminate $351 million in

funding previously appropriated in response

to the Northridge earthquake and other disasters. Over $50 million of this amount is expected to be needed just to meet claims for

flood damage in California and Washington.

In addition to leaving the Department of

Transportation unable to meet the funding

needs of existing disasters, this rescission

would eliminate the Department’s ability to

respond promptly to future disasters.

Instead of recommending rescission of

these needed funds, the Administration urges

the House to cancel unobligated balances of

highway demonstration projects, as proposed

in the President’s FY 1996 Budget.

DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

The rescission of $1.3 billion in funds to

help municipalities comply with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements would seriously

exacerbate local financing problems. Municipalities need almost $9 billion in capital

costs to comply with existing regulations

and additional billions to comply with future

rules needed to prevent problems such as the

cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee in

1993 that killed 100 people and caused illness

in another 400,000.

Most affected by this rescission would be

the 27 million people who get their water

from a system that has violated drinking

water standards. If Congress fails to authorize the drinking water state revolving fund

program, these funds can be used without

further Congressional action to address the

$137 billion in wastewater construction

needs.

COAST GUARD

The Administration opposes action to reduce Coast Guard operating expenses while

supplementing funding for expenses related

to operations in Haiti and Cuba. Offsets to

pay for those activities deemed an emergency by the Administration are counterproductive. Additional cuts would negate the

effects of the supplemental, thereby rendering the Coast Guard less able to provide the

level of service the public expects.

CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

The Administration believes that the Committee’s action to reduce funding for the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)

by a total of 23 percent from FY 1995 to FY

1997 is excessive and shortsighted. The Administration is committed to providing

equal access to educational opportunities,

particularly for young children, regardless of

income or geographic location.

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

H.R. 1159—MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS FOR THE FISCAL

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

This Statement of Administration Policy

provides the Administration’s views on the

two supplemental appropriations and rescissions bills, H.R. 1158 and H.R. 1159, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

The Administration strongly opposes both

of these bills in their present form. We believe that they unnecessarily cut valuable,

proven programs that educate our children

and aid the disadvantaged. The Administration also opposes cuts for programs that

were established to ensure our Nation’s role

in the advancement of technology. We also

strongly oppose a provision in the bill which

would upset the balance contained in current

law concerning Federal funding of abortions

for the victims of rape and incest and a provision that would prohibit implementation

of the Executive Order on striker replacements. Based on all of these considerations,

if the President were presented a bill containing the provisions of these two bills, the

Director of the Office of Management and

Budget would recommend that he veto the

bill.

As the President said in his February 14,

1995, letter, the Administration is proud of

its record for reducing the deficit while providing prompt assistance to the victims of

natural disasters. The Budget Enforcement

Act, signed by President Bush, established

the authority for the President and Congress

to exempt certain spending from the statutory caps, specifically for the purpose of

meeting emergency, unanticipated requirements. This joint designation by the President and the Congress has been used over the

last four years to provide critical assistance

in response to earthquakes, hurricanes,

floods, extreme cold and agricultural disasters, and for other purposes.

The Administration remains firmly committed to deficit reduction. In 1993, the Administration worked with the Congress to

enact the largest deficit reduction package

in history. We cut Federal spending by $255

billion over five years, cut taxes for 40 million low- and moderate-income Americans,

and made 90 percent of small businesses eligible for tax relief, while increasing income

tax rates only on the wealthiest 1.2 percent

of Americans. As we placed a tight ‘‘freeze’’

on overall discretionary spending at the FY

1993 levels, we shifted spending toward investments in human and physical capital

that will help secure our future.

This Administration’s economic plan

helped bring the deficit down from $290 billion in FY 1992, to $203 billion in FY 1994, to

a projected $193 billion this year—providing

three straight years of deficit reduction for

the first time since Harry Truman was President.

We believe that we can address the issue of

deficit reduction and provide for the Middle

Class Bill of Rights without putting low-income families at risk. The Administration

does not believe that sound programs, particularly those aimed at the disadvantaged

and those that will ensure our Nation’s

standing in areas of science and technology,

should be cut. It would be particularly unwise to make such cuts to finance a tax cut

for higher-income taxpayers.

In the FY 1996 Budget, the President has

proposed significant rescissions for FY 1995

and additional program terminations in FY

1996 for numerous low priority programs. In

contrast, the two House bills, H.R. 1158 and

H.R. 1159, would impose severe reductions on

a number of high-priority programs. These

cuts would have a particularly harmful effect on our Nation’s children by cutting

funding for National Service, Summer Jobs,

and WIC. Many of the cuts are shortsighted,

reducing funding for education, for advanced

technology programs that are critical to our

Nation’s future, and eliminating funding for

the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, which would be instrumental in leveraging investments in our

country’s most distressed communities.

Other cuts would adversely affect the health

of Americans by cutting safe drinking water

funding and violent crime prevention programs.

The Administration is opposed to an

amendment that was added by the Committee to H.R. 1159 that would allow states to

decide to stop using public funds to pay for

abortions in cases of rape and incest. The

President believes that abortion should be

safe, legal, and rare. The Administration is

committed to ensuring that women who are

victims of rape and incest have the right to

choose abortion as an option. A woman

should not be precluded from choosing this

option if she is poor.

The Administration opposes a provision in

the bill that would prohibit the Executive

Branch from using FY 1995 funds to issue,
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5349

implement, administer, or enforce any Executive Order or other rule or order that prohibits Federal contracts with companies that

hire permanent replacements for striking

employees. This provision would impinge

upon the Executive Branch’s ability to ensure a stable supply of quality goods and

services for the government’s programs.

The Administration objects to an amendment that was added by the Committee that

would mandate a minimum level of timber

salvage sales from Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The Department of Justice has advised that enactment

of this amendment would likely result in renewed judicial review of the President’s Forest Plan and could reduce timber, grazing,

and mining activities in the West. The Administration is already taking steps to restore and sustain significant levels of timber

harvest in the immediate future. In addition,

the Administration will shortly announce

changes in the consultation process in order

to expedite review of timber salvage sales as

well as other actions to increase timber harvest, in full compliance with environmental

laws.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has chosen to include urgently needed FEMA emergency supplemental funds in a controversial bill such as

H.R. 1158. This could cause an unnecessary

delay in assistance to victims of natural disasters. If action on the Administration’s request is delayed, FEMA will, beginning in

May, be unable to allocate funds to meet any

new disaster requirements, unless money reserved for the 40 states currently receiving

disaster assistance is cut.

Additional Administration concerns with

the Committee-reported bill are contained in

the attachment.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS H.R. 1158—EMERGENCY

SUPPLEMENTAL/RESCISSION BILL

FEMA DISASTER RELIEF

P.L. 102–229, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, contained

a special provision on emergency designations under the Budget Enforcement Act

(BEA) for FEMA Stafford Act activities.

That provision specifies that all appropriations for disaster assistance in excess of the

then historical annual average obligation of

$320 million (or the amount of the President’s budget request, whichever is lower)

‘‘shall be considered as ‘emergency requirements’ pursuant to’’ the BEA, and ‘‘such

amounts shall hereafter be so designated.’’

This provision is permanent law applying in

FY 1993 and ‘‘thereafter,’’ and expressly applies ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision

of law.’’ In FY 1995, the President requested

and the Congress did in fact appropriate $320

million for FEMA disaster activities.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has decided to disregard this

provision of law and to include this emergency funding in a controversial rescission

bill, which will inevitably lead to delay.

SUMMER JOBS

The Summer Jobs Program provides meaningful work experience for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth

who might otherwise not have any opportunity to learn necessary job skills and

workplace behaviors during crucial formative years. The proposed rescission would

eliminate funding for the Summer Youth

Employment program in each of the summers of 1995 and 1996, thereby eliminating

job opportunities for about 615,000 disadvantaged youth in each of these summers.

The Administration strongly believes that

improving the job prospects of at-risk youth

is an important element in a broader strategy to ensure employment opportunities for

all Americans and a vibrant, productive

workforce for U.S. business. The House is

urged to restore funding for this important

initiative.

NATIONAL SERVICE

The proposed $210 million rescission for the

Corporation for National and Community

Service would reduce significantly the President’s National Service program, depriving

more than 15,000 young adults of the opportunity to serve their communities as an

AmeriCorps member and earn an education

benefit. The proposed rescission would eliminate funding for the opportunity for thousands of school children to learn about responsibility to their community for the first

time.

This program has a proven track record.

For example, AmeriCorps members have already reclaimed recreation areas in inner

cities from gangs, and thousands of low-income and migrant children have received

proper immunizations to protect their

health.

The Administration strongly believes that

national service is a key to solving problems

inside America’s communities. The House is

urged to restore funding for this important

program.

WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

The bill would reduce funds available for

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) by

$25 million. The WIC program provides nutritious supplemental foods to low-income

pregnant, post-partum, and breastfeeding

women, and to infants and children up to

their fifth birthday. The Committee’s action

would result in 600,000 fewer food packages

for women, infants, and children. Jeopardizing the health and welfare of these mothers

and children cannot be justified.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The bill would reduce by over one-third

($174 million) the funding for Goals 2000,

which would greatly diminish support to

States and communities for raising academic

standards and improving their local schools.

The bill also proposes to cut the Education

for the Disadvantaged program by $105 million, which would reduce services to educationally disadvantaged children. The bill’s

sharp reduction in funding for education

technology programs ($65 million) would enable fewer local communities to put state-ofthe-art tools of learning in classrooms where

they are most needed to prepare our students

for the future.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This Administration remains firmly committed to increasing the Nation’s productivity and raising living standards by investing

in science and technology. These investments will lead to a healthy, educated public; job creation and economic growth; world

leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; and harnessed information technology. The rescissions proposed in this bill

for many of the programs in the Department

of Commerce would severely threaten the

United States’ standing with respect to technology advancements and competitiveness.

The proposed rescission of funds for the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) would reduce the

number of new centers established from 36 to

10. This would result in reduced access to

state-of-the-art manufacturing technology

and techniques by U.S. manufacturers—a

key component of the U.S. economy.

The $30 million rescission proposed for the

National Information Infrastructure Grants

program would eliminate grants to about 70–

90 schools, hospitals, non-profits, and state

and local governments. This action would decrease the credibility of the program as a

funding source and thus discourage private

sector matching grants to program applicants.

Reductions are also proposed for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) solar, renewable

energy, and conservation research programs.

Such reductions would threaten our national

effort to implement fully the Energy Policy

Act of 1992 and the Climate Change Action

Plan. Reduction to the DOE science budget

also would adversely impact climate change,

human genome, and neutron research. In addition, the $45 million reduction to the Environmental Management program would impede progress at several of the Department’s

cleanup sites.

The proposed rescission of $16.8 million, or

10 percent of the operating budget of the National Biological Service in the Department

of the Interior, this late in the fiscal year,

will force the Service to consider closing one

or more of the four major Centers located in

Lafayette, Louisiana; Seattle, Washington;

Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Anchorage, Alaska; as well as several other laboratories.

This would severely hamper the Service’s

ability to provide basic scientific information to the land managing bureaus within

the Department, including programs in the

Pacific Northwest, and would eliminate joint

State projects underway in more than 30

States.

The House is urged not to imperil our Nation’s standing on the technology frontier.

VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG ABUSE CONTROL

The Administration is concerned that the

Committee has chosen to rescind nearly $482

million in funding for the Safe and Drug

Free School Program at the same time that

every poll shows that crime and school safety are a major concern of Americans. This

program is the centerpiece of the Administration’s fight against the use of drugs and

stimulants by an alarmingly increasing

number of our youth.

The Administration opposes the Committee’s recommendation to rescind $65 million

for violent crime prevention and drug control initiatives funded through the Violent

Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Of this

amount, nearly $28 million would come from

the Drug Courts program, which will provide

drug treatment and real opportunities for rehabilitation for non-violent, first-time drug

offenders. Another $37 million would come

from the Family and Community Endeavor

Schools (FACES) program, which seeks to

provide healthy alternatives to the streets

for youth.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE

As currently drafted, this bill would

threaten the well-being of our Nation’s most

needy and vulnerable citizens and would

wreak havoc upon the stability of our Nation’s most distressed communities. The draconian cuts targeted towards programs of

the Department of Housing and Urban Development would deny help to 63,000 needy, lowincome households, including many homeless families. The bill would also prevent another 24,000 homeless families from moving

to transitional or permanent housing during

this fiscal year. Hundreds of communities

would lose money that they have counted on

for critical community needs such as housing rehabilitation and social services for the

elderly. The House is urged to restore funding to these vital areas.

In addition, the rescission of all FY 1995

funding for the Federal Government’s primary rural multi-family rental housing direct loan program (section 515) would put

thousands of rural residents living in existing Federal multi-family projects at risk and

jeopardize the Government’s investment in

these projects. Many of the Department of
H 5350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Agriculture’s projects need to be rehabilitated and, without the FY 1995 funding,

would be in danger of being closed.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS (CDFI) FUND

The proposed rescission of $124 million

would terminate this program. Without this

funding, the CDFI Fund would not be able to

provide: $10 million in direct loan subsidies

to support over $23 million of direct loans to

CDFIs; $50 million in grants, technical assistance, and other financial assistance to

CDFIs; and $20 million in community development incentives for depository institutions. The Fund’s investments in CDFIs,

banks, and thrifts would leverage an estimated $500 million in investments, loans,

and financial services in the country’s most

distressed communities. The House is urged

to restore this funding.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The bill does not appropriate the requested

$672 million emergency supplemental for assessed U.N. peacekeeping costs that will accrue during FY 1995. The United States is

bound by treaty to pay these costs. Failure

to pay them by the end of the fiscal year will

imperil the continuity of U.N. missions in regions of great importance to the U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.

Rather than approve the requested supplemental, the Committee has in H.R. 1159 rescinded peacekeeping funds.

HIGHWAYS—EMERGENCY RELIEF

This bill would eliminate $351 million in

funding previously appropriated in response

to the Northridge earthquake and other disasters. Over $50 million of this amount is expected to be needed just to meet claims for

flood damage in California and Washington.

In addition to leaving the Department of

Transportation unable to meet the funding

needs of existing disasters, this rescission

would eliminate the Department’s ability to

respond promptly to future disasters. Instead

of recommending rescission of these needed

funds, the Administration urges the House to

cancel unobligated balances of highway demonstration projects, as proposed in the President’s FY 1996 Budget.

DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

The rescission of $1.3 billion in funds to

help municipalities comply with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements would seriously

exacerbate local financing problems. Municipalities need almost $9 billion in capital

costs to comply with existing regulations

and additional billions to comply with future

rules needed to prevent problems such as the

cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee in

1993 that killed 100 people and caused illness

in another 400,000.

Most affected by this rescission would be

the 27 million people who get their water

from a system that has violated drinking

water standards. If Congress fails to authorize the drinking water state revolving fund

program, these funds can be used without

further Congressional action to address the

$137 billion in wastewater construction

needs.

COAST GUARD

The Administration opposes action to reduce Coast Guard operating expenses while

supplementing funding for expenses related

to operations in Haiti and Cuba. Offsets to

pay for those activities deemed an emergency by the Administration are counterproductive. Additional cuts would negate the

effects of the supplemental, thereby rendering the Coast Guard less able to provide the

level of service the public expects.

CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

The Administration believes that the Committee’s action to reduce funding for the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)

by a total of 23 percent from FY 1995 to FY

1997 is excessive and shortsighted. The Administration is committed to providing

equal access to educational opportunities,

particularly for young children, regardless of

income or geographic location.

H.R. 1159—NON-EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL/

RESCISSION BILL

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

This bill provides only $50 million of the

$275 million requested for Jordan debt forgiveness. This debt forgiveness is linked to

the historic steps taken by King Hussein to

conclude a peace agreement with Israel, an

act that markedly improved prospects for

overall peace in the region and that involved

considerable risk for King Hussein. We urge

the House to provide the requested funds for

Jordan debt forgiveness in support of the

hopeful developments in this region.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT,

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

Washington, DC, Mar. 1, 1995.

Hon. BOB LIVINGSTON,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this

letter is to provide the Administration’s

views on the two supplemental appropriations and rescission bills that are being considered by the House Appropriations Committee. The Administration strongly opposes

these bills in their present form. We believe

that they unnecessarily cut valuable, proven

programs that aid the disadvantaged in our

society and programs that were established

to ensure our Nation’s role in the advancement of technology.

The Administration remains firmly committed to deficit reduction. In 1993, the Administration worked with the Congress to

enact the largest deficit reduction package

in history. We cut Federal spending by $255

billion over five years, cut taxes for 40 million low- and moderate-income Americans,

and made 90 percent of small businesses eligible for tax relief, while increasing income

tax rates only on the wealthiest 1.2 percent

of Americans. While placing a tight ‘‘freeze’’

on overall discretionary spending at the FY

1993 levels, we shifted spending toward investments in human and physical capital

that will help secure our future.

This Administration’s economic plan

helped bring the deficit down from $290 billion in FY 1992, to $203 billion in FY 1994, to

a projected $193 billion this year—providing

three straight years of deficit reduction for

the first time since Harry Truman was President.

We believe that we can address the issue of

deficit reduction and provide for the Middle

Class Bill of Rights without putting low-income families at risk. The Administration

does not believe that sound programs, particularly those aimed at the disadvantaged

and those that will ensure our Nation’s

standing in areas of science and technology

should be cut. It would be particularly unwise to make such cuts to finance a tax cut

for higher income taxpayers.

In the FY 1996 Budget, the President has

proposed significant rescissions for FY 1995

and additional program terminations in FY

1996 for numerous low-priority programs. In

contrast, the draft House bills would impose

severe reductions on a number of high-priority programs. These cuts would have a particularly harmful effect on our Nation’s children by cutting funding for National Service,

Summer Jobs, and WIC. Many of the cuts are

shortsighted, reducing funding for education

and for advanced technology programs which

are critical to our Nation’s future. Other

cuts would adversely affect the health of

Americans by cutting Ryan White and safe

drinking water funding. Examples of the Administration’s concerns on specific items are

discussed in more detail in the enclosure.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has chosen to include urgently needed FEMA emergency supplemental funds in this controversial bill. This

could cause an unnecessary delay in assistance to victims of natural disasters. If action

on the Administration’s request is delayed,

FEMA will, beginning in May, be unable to

allocate funds to meet any new disaster requirements, unless money reserved for the 40

states currently receiving disaster assistance

is cut. We strongly urge the Committee to

consider funding for this emergency program

in a separate bill.

The Administration believes that the

emergency spending provided by the pending

legislation is not required to be offset. The

Budget Enforcement Act emergency authority was established specifically to provide

for the funding of such unanticipated requirements.

As the President said in his February 14,

1995, letter, the Administration is proud of

its record for reducing the deficit while providing prompt assistance to the victims of

natural disasters. The Budget Enforcement

Act, signed by President Bush, established

the authority for the President and Congress

to exempt certain spending from the statutory caps, specifically for the purpose of

meeting emergency, unanticipated requirements. This joint designation by the President and the Congress has been used over the

last four years to provide critical assistance

in response to earthquakes, hurricanes,

floods, extreme cold and agricultural disasters, and for other purposes.

We would encourage the Committee to review its recommendations and adopt a rescission package that is more consistent

with the one submitted by the President in

his FY 1996 Budget. We look forward to

working with the Committee to address our

mutual concerns.

Sincerely,

ALICE M. RIVLIN,

Director.

Enclosure.

EXAMPLES OF CONCERNS

MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND MAKING RESCISSIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND

RESCISSIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING

SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL/RESCISSION

BILL

FEMA Disaster Relief

P.L. 102–229, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, contained

a special provision on emergency designations under the Budget Enforcement Act

(BEA) for FEMA Stafford Act activities.

That provision specifies that all appropriations for disaster assistance in excess of the

historical average obligation of $320 million

(or the amount of the President’s budget request, whichever is lower) ‘‘shall be considered as ‘emergency requirements’ pursuant

to’’ the BEA, and ‘‘such amounts shall hereafter be so designated.’’ This provision is

permanent law applying in 1993 and ‘‘thereafter,’’ and expressly applies ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’’ In FY 1995,

Congress did in fact appropriate $320 million

for FEMA disaster activities.

The Administration is disappointed that

the Committee has decided to disregard this

provision of law and include this emergency

funding in a controversial rescission bill,

which will inevitably lead to delay.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5351

Housing Assistance

As currently drafted, this bill would

threaten the well-being of our Nation’s most

needy and vulnerable citizens and would

wreak havoc upon the stability of our Nation’s most distressed communities. The draconian cuts targeted towards programs of

the Department of Housing and Urban Development would eliminate subsidized housing

assistance to 63,000 needy, low-income households, and would prevent 24,000 homeless

families from moving to transitional or permanent housing this fiscal year. Hundreds of

communities would lose money that they

have counted on for critical community

needs such as housing rehabilitation and social services for the elderly. The Committee

is urged to restore funding to these vital

areas.

In addition, the rescission of all FY 1995

funding for the Federal Government’s primary rural multi-family rental housing direct loan program (section 515) would put

thousands of rural residents living in existing Federal multi-family projects at risk and

jeopardizes the Government’s investment in

these projects. Many of the Department of

Agriculture’s projects need to be rehabilitated and without the FY 1995 funding are in

danger of being closed.

Summer Jobs

The Summer Jobs Program provides meaningful work experience for hundreds of thousands of economically disadvantaged youth

who might otherwise not have any opportunity to learn necessary job skills and

workplace behaviors during crucial formative years. The proposed rescission would

eliminate funding for the Summer Youth

Employment program in each of the summers of 1995 and 1996, thereby eliminating

job opportunities for about 615,000 disadvantaged youth in each of these summers. The

Administration strongly believes that improving the job prospects of at-risk youth is

an important element in a broader strategy

to ensure employment opportunities for all

Americans and a vibrant productive

workforce for U.S. business. The Committee

is urged to restore funding for this important initiative.

National Service

The proposed $210 million rescission for the

Corporation for National and Community

Service would reduce significantly the President’s national service program, depriving

more than 15,000 young adults of the opportunity to serve their communities through

AmeriCorps and earn an education benefit.

The proposed rescission would eliminate

funding for thousands of school children

learning about responsibility to their community for the first time.

This program has a proven track record.

For example, AmeriCorps has already reclaimed recreation areas in inner cities from

gangs, and thousands of low-income and migrant children have received proper immunizations to protect their health.

The Administration strongly believes that

national and community service is a key to

solving problems inside America’s communities. The Committee is urged to restore

funding for this important program.

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

The bill would reduce funds available for

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) by

$25 million. The WIC program provides nutritious supplemental foods to low-income

pregnant, post-partum, and breastfeeding

women, and to infants and children up to

their fifth birthday. The Subcommittee’s action would result in 600,000 fewer food packages for women, infants, and children. Jeopardizing the health and welfare of these

mothers and children cannot be justified.

Education Programs

The bill would reduce by over one-third

($174 million) the funding for Goals 2000,

which would greatly reduce support to

States and communities to raise academic

standards and improve their local schools.

The bill also proposes to cut the Education

for the Disadvantaged program by $105 million, which would reduce services to educationally disadvantaged children. The bill’s

sharp reduction in funding for education

technology programs ($65 million) would enable fewer local communities to put state-ofthe-art tools of learning in classrooms where

they are most needed to prepare our students

for the future.

Science and Technology

This Administration remains firmly committed to increasing the Nation’s productivity and raising living standards by investing

in science and technology. These investments will lead to a healthy, educated public; job creation and economic growth; world

leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; and harnessed information technology. The rescissions proposed in this bill

for many of the programs in the Department

of Commerce would severely threaten the

United States’ standing with respect to technology advancements and competitiveness.

The proposed rescission of funds for the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) would reduce the

number of new centers established from 36 to

10. This would result in reduced access to

state-of-the-art manufacturing technology

and techniques by U.S. manufacturers—a

key component of the U.S. economy.

The $30 million rescission proposed for the

National Information Infrastructure Grants

program would eliminate grants to about 70–

90 schools, hospitals, non-profits, and state

and local governments. This action would decrease the credibility of the program as a

funding source and thus discourage private

sector matching grants to program applicants.

Reductions are also proposed for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) solar, renewable

energy, and conservation research programs.

Such reductions would threaten our national

effort to fully implement the Energy Policy

Act of 1992 and the Climate Change Action

Plan. Reduction to the DOE science budget

also would adversely impact climate change,

human genome, and neutron research. In addition, the $45 million reduction to the Environmental Management program would impede progress at several of the Department’s

cleanup sites.

The Committee is urged not to imperil our

Nation’s standing on the technology frontier.

Violent Crime and Drug Abuse Control

The Administration opposes the decision

to rescind $67 million for violent crime prevention and drug control initiatives funded

through the Violent Crime Reduction Trust

Fund. Of this amount, nearly $28 million

would come from the Drug Courts program,

which will provide drug treatment and real

opportunities for rehabilitation for non-violent, first-time drug offenders. All funding

for the Ounce of Prevention Council would be

rescinded. Over $36 million would come from

the Family and Community Endeavor

Schools (FACES) program, which seeks to

provide healthy alternatives to the streets

for youth.

The Administration is concerned that the

Subcommittees have chosen to rescind nearly $482 million in funding for the Safe and

Drug Free School Program at the same time

that every poll shows that crime and school

safety are a major concern of Americans.

This program is the centerpiece of the Administration’s fight against the use of drugs

and stimulate by an alarmingly increasing

number of our youth.

Highways

This bill would eliminate $351 million in

funding previously appropriated in response

to the Northridge earthquake and other disasters. Over $50 million of this amount is expected to be needed just to meet claims for

flood damage in California and Washington.

In addition to leaving the Department

Transportation unable to meet the funding

needs of existing disasters, this rescission

would eliminate the Department’s ability to

respond promptly to future disasters. Instead

of recommending rescission of these needed

funds, the Administration urges the Committee to cancel unobligated balances of highway demonstration to projects, as proposed

in the President’s FY 1996 Budget.

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds

The rescission of $1.3 billion in funds to

help municipalities comply with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements would seriously

exacerbate local financing problems. Municipalities need most $9 billion in capital costs

to comply with existing regulations and additional billions to comply with future rules

needed to prevent problems such as the

crytosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee that

killed 100 people and caused illness and another 400,000.

Most affected by this rescission would be

the 27 million people who get their water

from a system that has violated drinking

water standards. If Congress fails to authorize this program, these funds can be used

without further Congressional action to address the $137 billion in wastewater construction needs.

Coast Guard

The Administration opposes action to reduce Coast Guard operating expenses while

supplementing funding for expenses related

to operations in Haiti and Cuba. Offsets to

pay for those activities deemed an emergency by the Administration are counterproductive. Additional cuts would negate the

effects of the supplemental, thereby rendering the Coast Guard less able to provide the

level of service the public expects.

Non-Emergency Supplemental/Rescission Bill

Striker Replacements

The Administration opposes a provision in

the bill that would prohibit the Executive

Branch from using FY 1995 funds to issue,

implement, administer, or enforce any Executive Order or other rule or order that prohibits Federal contracts with companies that

hire permanent replacement for striking employees. This provision would impinge upon

the Executive Branch’s ability to ensure a

stable supply for quality goods and services

for the government’s programs. We urge the

Committee to strike this provision.

International Programs

Neither of the bills under consideration appropriates the requested $672 million emergency supplemental for assessed U.N. peacekeeping costs that will accrue during FY

1995. The United States is bound by treaty to

pay these costs. Failure to pay them by the

end of the year will imperil the continuity of

U.N. missions in regions of great importance

to the U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.

The non-emergency supplemental/rescission bill provides only $50 million of the $275

million requested for Jordan debt forgiveness. This debt forgiveness is linked to the

historic steps taken by King Hussein to conclude a peace agreement with Israel, and act

that markedly improved prospects for overall peace in the region and that involved considerable risk for King Hussein. We urge the
H 5352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Committee to provide the requested funds

for Jordan debt forgiveness in support of the

hopeful developments in this region.

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service (ASCS)

The Administration objects to the $10 million in unrequested supplemental appropriations for salaries and expenses for the former

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service (ASCS), now part of the Department

of Agricultural’s Consolidated Farm Service

Agency (AFSA). The additional funds are not

needed, particularly since FY 1995 appropriations for the ASCS were already $13 million

greater than requested by the Administration. At a time when Federal employees are

being reduced government-wide, it is inappropriate to provide additional funds to more

county office personnel managed by a Federal agency. The presence of surplus funds in

CFSA would not facilitate a timely transition to the streamlined CFSA organization

of the future.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as she may consume to

the distinguished gentlewoman from

Nevada [Mrs. VUCANOVICH], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military

Construction.

(Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the chairman for yielding me

the time.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day,

finally a balanced budget. I rise in support of the conference report.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 1 minute to the distinguished

gentleman from California [Mr.

HERGER],

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise

today on behalf of the Americans who

are concerned about the proposed veto

threat by their President.

Mr. Speaker, last summer fire storms

roared through Northern California,

threatening to destroy entire communities. Last spring this same area was

ravaged by devastating floods which

left thousands homeless. During these

calamities families and communities

cried out to the President for help.

Today we will give the President the

means to help these people, but he is

turning his back on them. We offer relief to thousands of flood victims, but

the President is turning his back. We

offer a timber salvage plan to protect

forest communities from incinerating

fires, but the President is again turning his back.

Mr. Speaker, the President is turning

his back, but we are not. Today we will

show these Americans who has the real

compassion. I urge my colleagues to

vote ‘‘yes’’ on the conference report.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as he may consume to

the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

DELAY].

(Mr. DELAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to

bring Members’ attention to language in this

bill that I believe represents the opening salvo

in the fight to win freedom for our States and

our constituents from entrenched EPA bureaucrats and the regulatory tyranny imposed by

the Clean Air Act.

There are Members of both bodies that better wake up and recognize that there’s rebellion in the streets over the heavy handed, misguided, EPA directed inspection and maintenance program.

I fought hard to get strong language in this

bill that would force EPA to correct their

flawed program and bring immediate relief to

States. The best we could get was language

sending an explicit warning to EPA that if they

fail to demonstrate clear flexibility in allowing

States to design programs that fit their particular air situations, that we would come back

and put that strong language on the next

available vehicle.

Those of us who understand the arrogance

and intransigence EPA has exhibited in dealing with the concerns of States will be watching EPA’s actions very closely looking for the

first misstep. I submit to my colleagues that

EPA cannot be trusted to make the reasonable changes necessary.

Because the EPA has refused to be flexible

to date, 15 States will be subject to sanctions

in the next 3 months. Their I&M programs

have either been delayed or suspended or the

State has refused to comply with the requirement altogether. Some States have grass

roots efforts pushing for total repeal.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this is just

round one. If EPA has any sense at all, they

will take a good look at the language in this

bill and think long and hard before they reject

a State plan, like the one Texas has proposed, that addresses the unique air problems

of that State.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of this rescission bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER). The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGTON] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY] has 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the

remainder of our time to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. GEPHARDT],

the distinguished minority leader.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for

5 minutes.

(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise

to first answer the charge that has

been made that this President is not

concerned about victims of natural disasters.

In my view this President and this

Federal Emergency Administration has

done more faster to help people who

are in need in natural disasters than

any administration I can remember.

We will get a piece of legislation to his

desk that will handle those problems.

But I rise today to make one fundamental point. Shame on those who

vote for tax cuts for the wealthy and

budget cuts for children from struggling families. Make no mistake about

it, that is what this bill does. It cuts

food and nutrition for pregnant women

and babies, a program that saves nearly 4 times what it costs.

It eliminates the summer jobs program, which has enabled so many

young people to lift themselves out of

poverty and off of welfare.

It even cuts medical equipment that

is desperately needed to care for our

veterans. And heat for the low-income

elderly, a program that literally saves

people from freezing to death.

These cuts would be reckless and unfair no matter what purpose they

served. But to make these deep and

dangerous cuts to pay for a tax cut for

the wealthiest people in the country,

to give a $20,000-a-year windfall to the

people who do not need it, those earning more than $350,000 a year, is simply

unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, when this bill was originally passed in the House, we at least

had a guarantee because we had voted

for the guarantee that not a dime of

these cuts would be used for tax breaks

for the privileged few. Now that guarantee has been stripped out of this bill.

The money saved by these cuts goes

right from the hardworking middle

class to the wealthiest people in the

country, the most outrageous redistribution of income since the days of

the robber barons. That is why we have

to vote against this bill in the name of

the deficit but also in the name of common decency.

I urge Members of defeat this wrongheaded rescission bill. We do not need

more tax perks for the privileged at a

devastating cost to the people of this

country.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield myself such time as I may

consume.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes

remaining.

(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, a

few housekeeping matters. There is no

rescission in this conference agreement

for any VA construction projects or

equipment purchases. There are no tax

cuts in this bill. And for the benefit of

anyone in the White House, this committee has no jurisdiction over tax

cuts.

This bill does not pay for tax cuts.

What it does do is provide billions of

dollars for many deserving Americans

who need help to rebuild their lives

after the Oklahoma City tragedy, after

the California earthquake and floods,

after the Texas and Louisiana floods

and all those other disasters across the

land.

b 1830

This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides $250

million for Oklahoma City, just as the

President asked. It provides $275 million for the Jordan debt relief that he

asked for. It provides $6.7 billion for

FEMA emergency assistance that he

asked for.

Unfortunately, it struck the strikerreplacement language that I favored,

but he asked us to strike it; and in
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5353

order to get a compromise with the

other body it was struck.

It includes emergency salvage timber

sales language that will allow tens of

thousands of people in the Northwest

to go back to work, and the bill also

cuts the deficit by $16.4 billion, the

largest single rescission of existing appropriations in the history of the Nation. It gives us a net savings to the

American taxpayer in fiscal year 1995

of $9.1 billion, the largest savings to

the American taxpayer in the history

of the country.

What this bill says to the American

people is that we can meet our emergencies, that we can pay for them, and

that we can move toward a balanced

budget for the first time since 1969. We

can protect the future of our children

and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good deal.

A good deal for present and current

Americans and their children and their

grandchildren, and a no vote against

this bill would be irresponsible and a

veto by the President of the United

States would be irresponsible.

I urge the Members of this body to

adopt this conference report.

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, earlier the majority in this body passed their

budget resolution to effectively restructure future Federal tax and spending policies to benefit the most well-to-do individuals and largest

corporations in the United States at the expense of hardworking Americans and their

families. We now have before us a piece of

legislation which reaches back into last year’s

appropriations and cruelly snatches away already allocated Federal funding for numerous

initiatives vital to our local communities and

constituents. Like the Energizer Bunny, the

‘‘Contract on America’’ just keeps going and

going and going.

The GOP leadership likes to give lip service

to the issue of empowerment, to helping people help themselves. However, this rescissions

package flies in the face of such a philosophy.

What the Republicans are really saying with

this conference report, with the budget resolution which just passed, is ‘‘We just don’t care.’’

However, residents of the Seventh Congressional District in Illinois, my constituents, care

deeply about the reckless nature of the GOP

budget axe and its disastrous impact on them,

their families, and their communities.

Of great concern is the status of the LowIncome Home Energy Assistance Program

[LIHEAP], which helps 2 million struggling senior citizens meet the high costs of their winter

heating bills without having to make a choice

between those bills and their daily meals and

medicine. Yet the GOP indiscriminately guts

LIHEAP by 25 percent. As a result, tens of

thousands of Chicago households that were

served in fiscal year 1995 will be threatened,

not to mention those who have been on waiting lists.

Mr. Chairman, in a city such as mine, where

on an average winter day the temperature

hovers around 10 degrees, with the wind chill

in the negative double digits, you tell me this

is a sound policy decision. Tell the family of

60-year-old Earline Hooker, who froze to

death in January in Chicago because she

wasn’t able to get LIHEAP assistance, that

this program is wasteful or unnecessary. I

challenge you.

In keeping with the GOP assault on our children and our future as a nation, this bill steals

all hope and opportunity away from 600,000 of

our disadvantaged youngsters through the

eradication of the summer jobs program in

1996—a proven program that provides basic

skills, income, and work experience. Across

the Chicago metropolitan area next summer,

kids who had looked forward to being entrusted with responsibility and leadership will

now be faced with hanging on the streetcorner

with nothing to do but get into trouble. So

much for promoting positive alternatives for

our youth. But again, the Republican leadership just doesn’t care.

The GOP also doesn’t care that this legislation punishes low-income babies and their

moms with a $20 million cut from the Women,

Infants, and Children Nutrition Program, an

$85 million cut in the lead-based paint abatement program. They’re poor, who cares?

Yet one of the most disturbing portions of

this bill is its complete lack of regard for the

plight of public housing residents in this Nation

and the neighborhoods in which they live and

work. Although the Department of Housing

and Urban Development has already begun a

serious effort to restructure and make Federal

housing and development programs more efficient and responsive to local needs, the Republicans don’t want to hear it. They just want

to slash, cut, and burn without regard to the

necessity or productivity of the program or

who gets hurt.

HUD has estimated that the $6.3 billion in

housing cuts in this bill will result in the elimination of thousands of low-income housing

units in my city of Chicago. Assistance will be

lost for public housing modernization and operating subsidies, seriously disrupting already

weakened maintenance and security for residents. In addition, needed funds to help the

homeless and individuals with AIDS find suitable shelter is out the window. Explain to me

how in the world this helps meet the goal of

‘‘a kinder, gentler nation,’’ for which former

President Bush and his Republican friends reportedly advocated. I don’t think so.

With respect to the issue of disaster relief

for the California earthquakes and the tragedy

in Oklahoma, no one in Congress wishes to

hold up that aid and charges that opposition to

this conference report will do that are unfounded. The Republican majority knows full

well that they could craft a bill today for these

important purposes, pass it, and send it to the

President’s desk for signature without delay.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote

no on the Republican rescissions conference

report and put a quick halt to the GOP’s careless, reckless beginning to this second 100

days. Take a stand—the President has.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise

in support of the conference report to H.R.

1158.

Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the

House, I voted for a balanced budget amendment knowing full well that such a measure

would require tough choices. While some contend that we don’t need such an amendment,

personally I felt that our Nation’s future depended on it.

Our national debt is staggering, our annual

deficit continues to grow, and our actions

today on this conference report mark the first

real step to protect future generations. We are

here for our children and grandchildren, pure

and simple. If we act today we give them a

greater measure of security. Most important,

this first tough vote may give them a chance

to have the opportunities we enjoy: a great

education, the prospect of a real job and an

opportunity for a better future. Our vote today

is a downpayment on a balanced budget.

Let’s be clear this package is a $16.4 billion

reduction out of a total of a $1.5 trillion budget. It is less than a 1 percent reduction.

The bottom line is that we need to start the

process. What better steps than to consolidate

a horde of programs, some highly duplicative,

some unauthorized by Congress itself, some

with unjustified increases, and others paralyzed in the money pipeline with little likelihood

of being spent.

I am astonished that President Clinton is

considering using his first veto on this bill that

would reduce Federal spending by $16.4 billion and provide emergency funding for the

California floods and the Oklahoma City

bombing recovery effort.

The President and the Democrats have

made their position clear—which is that they

intend to sit on the sidelines while the Republicans balance the Federal budget. As I said

early, this reduction represents less than 1

percent of the Federal budget, and yet the

President thinks that is too much. It is ironic

and saddening that the very day the House

will vote on the first real balanced budget plan

in 25 years, the President would rather keep

spending money we don’t have and stick our

children and grandchildren with the tab. This is

living proof that Washington will not stop

spending without a balanced budget amendment.

With this bill we are making it clear that we

will set priorities, we will limit the size of government, and we will do what we said we

would—reduce the deficit, balance the budget,

and restore the future to our children.

I urge the passage of this important conference report.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER). All time has expired.

Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the conference report.

Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV the

years and nays are ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 235, nays

189, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No 346]

YEAS—235

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Davis

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan
H 5354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 18, 1995

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Gingrich

Goodlatte

Goodling

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Morella

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Petri

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Pryce

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roukema

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Skeen

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Spence

Stearns

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Upton

Visclosky

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—189

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bevill

Bishop

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Chapman

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (IL)

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Cramer

Danner

de la Garza

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Durbin

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Ford

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hefner

Hilliard

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

LaTourette

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lipinski

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pomeroy

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Rose

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Scarborough

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skelton

Slaughter

Souder

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Tanner

Tejeda

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Velazquez

Vento

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

NOT VOTING—11

Berman

Jacobs

King

Kleczka

McNulty

Payne (NJ)

Peterson (FL)

Quillen

Stenholm

Tucker

Weldon (FL)

b 1852

The Clerk announced the following

pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Weldon of Florida for, with Mr. McNulty against.

So the conference report was agreed

to.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

REPORT ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO PROfLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND THEIR MEANS OF DELIVERY—MESSAGE FROM THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES—(H. DOC. NO. 104–76)

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr.

WALKER] laid before the House the following message from the President of

the United States; which was read and,

without objection, referred to the Committee on International Relations and

ordered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:

On November 14, 1994, in light of the

dangers of the proliferation of nuclear,

biological, and chemical weapons and

their means of delivery (‘‘weapons of

mass destruction’’), I issued Executive

Order No. 12938 and declared a national

emergency under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

As I described in the report transmitting Executive Order No. 12938, the new

Executive order consolidated the functions of and revoked Executive Order

No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, which

declared a national emergency with respect to the proliferation of chemical

and biological weapons, and Executive

Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994,

which declared a national emergency

with respect to nuclear, biological, and

chemical weapons, and their means of

delivery. The new Executive order also

expanded certain existing authorities

in order to strengthen the U.S. ability

to respond to proliferation problems.

The following report is made pursuant to section 204 of the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act and

section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act regarding activities taken

and money spent pursuant to the emergency declaration. Additional information on nuclear, missile, and/or chemical and biological weapons (CBW) nonproliferation efforts is contained in the

annual report on the proliferation of

missiles and essential components of

nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, provided to the Congress pursuant

to section 1097 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992

and 1993 (Public Law 102–190), also

known as the ‘‘Nonproliferation Report,’’ and the annual report provided

to the Congress pursuant to section 308

of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination

Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–182).

The three export control regulations

issued under the Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative (EPCI) are fully

in force and continue to be used to control the export of items with potential

use in chemical or biological weapons

or unmanned delivery systems for

weapons of mass destruction.

In the 6 months since I issued Executive Order No. 12938, the number of

countries that have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has

reached 27 (out of 159 signatory countries). I am urging the Senate to give

its advice and consent to ratification

as soon as possible. The CWC is a critical element of U.S. nonproliferation

policy that will significantly enhance

our security and that of our friends and

allies. I believe that U.S. ratification

will help to encourage the ratification

process in other countries and, ultimately, the CWC’s entry into force.

The United States actively participates in the CWC Preparatory Commission in The Hague, the deliberative

body drafting administrative and implementing procedures for the CWC.

Last month, this body accepted the

U.S. offer of an information management system for the future Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical

Weapons that will implement the CWC.

The United States also is playing a

leading role in developing a training

program for international inspectors.

The United States strongly supports

international efforts to strengthen the

1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC). In January 1995, the Ad

Hoc Group mandated by the September

1994 BWC Special Conference to draft a

legally binding instrument to strengthen the effectiveness and improve the

implementation of the BWC held its

first meeting. The Group agreed on a

program of work and schedule of substantive meetings, the first of which

will occur in July 1995. The United

States is pressing for completion of the

Ad Hoc Group’s work and consideration

of the legally binding instrument by