```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5315-H5354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 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 
[[Page H5316]] 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 school-to-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.

                              {time}  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 6\1/2\ 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 6\1/2\ 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 
[[Page H5317]] 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 
[[Page H5318]] 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.

                              {time}  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.

[[Page H5319]]

TH18MY95.000

[[Page H5320]] TH18MY95.001

[[Page H5321]] TH18MY95.002

[[Page H5322]] TH18MY95.003

[[Page H5323]] TH18MY95.004

[[Page H5324]] TH18MY95.005

[[Page H5325]] TH18MY95.006

[[Page H5326]] TH18MY95.007

[[Page H5327]] TH18MY95.008

[[Page H5328]] TH18MY95.009

[[Page H5329]] TH18MY95.010

[[Page H5330]] TH18MY95.011

[[Page H5331]] TH18MY95.012

[[Page H5332]]

  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 
[[Page H5333]] 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 
[[Page H5334]] 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.

                              {time}  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 2\1/2\ 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 Brewster-Minge 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 
[[Page H5335]] 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 so-called 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 2\1/2\ 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 
[[Page H5336]] 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.
                              {time}  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 
[[Page H5337]] 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.
  [[Page H5338]] 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.
                              {time}  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 
[[Page H5339]] 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 mind-set 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 
     [[Page H5340]] 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 
     [[Page H5341]] 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 state-of-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 
     [[Page H5342]] 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 one-third 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 government-owned 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 one-time 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 House-passed 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 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, 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.

[[Page H5343]]

 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, low-income 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.
       [[Page H5344]] 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 House-passed 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 
     [[Page H5345]] 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-of-
     the-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.
       [[Page H5346]] 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.
       [[Page H5347]] 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-of-the-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 
     [[Page H5348]] 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, low-income 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, 
     [[Page H5349]] 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-of-the-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, low-income 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 
     [[Page H5350]] 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.
                   [[Page H5351]] 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-of-the-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 
     [[Page H5352]] 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.

                              {time}  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 striker-replacement language that I 
favored, but he asked us to strike it; and in 
[[Page H5353]] 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 Low-Income 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
     [[Page H5354]] 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)

                              {time}  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.
  

                          ____________________
```