[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3759.

                              {time}  1507


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3759) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, with 
Mrs. Kennelly in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] had 
been disposed of. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 103-416.


                    amendment offered by mr. deutsch

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Deutsch: On page 19, after line 
     12, insert the following:

                        Administrative Provision

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency may not expend any funds 
     appropriated to it, or deny the political subdivision known 
     as Metropolitan Dade County, State of Florida, coverage under 
     the National Flood Insurance Program, for the purpose of 
     requiring Metropolitan Dade County to direct property owners 
     to tear down existing construction of which the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency was aware on or after August 24, 
     1992, where Metropolitan Dade County did not give accurate 
     notice to affected property owners of National Flood 
     Insurance Program regulation requirements.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Deutsch] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch] very much for yielding this time to me in order 
to have a very brief colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
V.A., HUD and Independent Agencies, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes], and I ask if he would be willing to do this.
  Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
certainly be delighted to join in a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Chairman, as the gentleman knows, this 
bill includes $15 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
[FEMA] to spend on research, particularly postearthquake investigations 
under section 11 of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
[NEHRP].
  Madam Chairman, this program is very important to our understanding 
of earthquakes. It is imperative that we help the research teams that 
are out gathering such information to do their job as quickly as 
possible. It is also my understanding, Madam Chairman, that all of the 
investigations will be carried out collaboratively among the NEHRP 
agencies. In view of the urgency of these investigations, I would like 
to request that we receive a plan from the agencies on the proposed 
study within 2 months of the signing of this bill.
  Madam Chairman, it is the intent of this provision that FEMA will 
distribute the funds to the NEHRP agencies as soon as possible after 
the enactment of this bill, and that my understanding of the uses of 
the $15 million concurs with the views of the chairman of the VA-HUD 
subcommittee of appropriations. Is this correct?
  Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his assurances.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Chairman, 18 months ago Hurricane Andrew 
devastated south Florida. Up to that time it was the largest disaster 
in our Nation's and probably the world's history. Many residents went 
through a living hell, and many residents are still going through that 
same crisis in their lives.
  The Federal, State, and local governments should be there to solve 
problems, not to create them. I want to thank my colleagues who were in 
this Chamber before I arrived who did such a great deal to help solve 
some of the problems that south Florida experienced during that period 
of time.
  FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has done both good and 
actually some really awful bad things in its work in south Florida. 
There are some residents who are still going through a type of living 
hell. Residents of Royal Harbor Yacht Club in south Dade County are 
amongst those people.
  These are people who had built their homes that were totally 
devastated in the hurricane, in almost the eye of the storm, and then 
rebuilt their homes after getting the proper permits, and now have been 
told by FEMA that they should destroy the homes after they were 
properly permitted.
  For the last 6 months my office, as well as the offices in Dade 
County of County Commissioner Hawkins and the county manager, has been 
trying to resolve this issue with FEMA.
  I really want to thank the Rules Committee members today for making 
this amendment in order. Within the last 24 hours we have worked with 
FEMA, and we have been able to resolve an intractable issue. This 
should not have ever been to the point of an amendment on the floor of 
the U.S. Congress. It is an issue which should have been resolved 
administratively, and it has now been resolved administratively. My 
hope is that by both offering this amendment and bringing to our 
attention some of these problems of FEMA, those people who have been 
victims of natural disasters since Hurricane Andrew, those in the 
Midwest and those in California today, would not experience the level 
of frustration and the level of intractable bureaucracies that some 
people still experience in south Florida.
  Madam Chairman, with those comments and again with my appreciation, 
particularly for the Rules Committee and the members responsible for 
making this amendment in order, along with the chairman of the 
subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to 
consider the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant]. The amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided 
and controlled between the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a 
Member opposed.
  The amendment is not subject to amendment.


                   amendment offered by Mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I offer my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . In the case of any equipment or product that may 
     be authorize to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided using funds made available in this Act, it is the 
     sense of the Congress that entities receiving the assistance 
     should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
     made equipment and products, and that notice of this 
     provision be given to each recipient of assistance covered 
     under this Act.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, the amendment is very straightforward. 
The American taxpayers provide the money for us to run our Government, 
and when our Government buys goods and services, we should encourage 
that those moneys be used to buy American-made goods and products.
  With that, Madam Chairman, let me say that I appreciate the support 
of the committee, and I ask that my amendment be agreed to.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to oppose the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-416.


               amendment offered by mr. myers of indiana

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Indiana.
       At the end of the bill:
       (1) Insert the text of H.R. 3511, as reported by the 
     Committee on Appropriations, making rescissions of $2.561 
     billion: and
       (2) insert at the end thereof the following new sections:
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds Connected With Reduction in 
     Full Time Equivalent Positions.--Of the aggregate funds made 
     available to executive departments and agencies in 
     appropriations Acts for fiscal year 1994 for purposes of 
     employee compensation, with the exception of the Department 
     of Defense, $750,000,000 is rescinded. The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall allocate such 
     rescission among the appropriate accounts and shall submit to 
     the Congress a report setting forth such allocation;
       Sec.   . Reduction in Administrative Expenses.
       (a) Budget Obligations.--
       (1) In general.--The amount obligated by all departments 
     and agencies, with the exception of the Department of 
     Defense, for expenses during fiscal year 1994 shall be 
     reduced by an amount sufficient to result in a reduction of 
     $3,200,000,000 in outlays for expenses during fiscal year 
     1994. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall establish obligation limits for each agency and 
     department in order to carry out the provision of this 
     section.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for Community Development 
     Grants.
       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Community 
     Planning and Development--Community Development Grants'' in 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
     Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-124) for grants, $400,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for MK-19 Grenade Launcher 
     Program.
       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Procurement 
     of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     139), $15,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the MK-19 
     Grenade Launcher Program.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for NOAA Research Fleet.
       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' in the Department of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), 
     $17,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for EDA.
       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Economic 
     Development Administration--Economic Development Assistance 
     Programs'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, 
     the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-121), $25,000,000 is rescinded.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for House Franking.
       Of the funds made available under the heading ``House of 
     Representatives--Salaries and Expenses'' in the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-69), $2,000,000 
     is rescinded, to be derived from ``Official Mail Costs''.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for World Bank.
       (5) ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'': $50,000,000 to 
     be derived from advance procurement of LHD-7.
       Sec.   . Rescission of Funds for Legislative Branch.
       (a) In general.--The funds made available for each account 
     in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-69), are rescinded by 1.3 percent of such funds.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana will 
be recognized for 30 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I hope it will not be necessary for us to take the 
full hour here. I hope we can complete this debate in less than an 
hour, maybe something even less than a half hour, because we do have a 
busy schedule here this afternoon.
  I do not know of anyone in this House or anyone in the country who 
does not want to help the victims of this earthquake in California. 
Unfortunately, some of us have some difficulty about how we are going 
to accomplish this without doing more damage to the rest of the country 
and the rest of our budget. That is the reason I have to offer this 
amendment. I wish I did not have to do it. I wish we had the mechanism 
already set up so we would have the means of taking care of disasters 
like this and helping the people who need the help so badly without 
doing this to our economy, but unfortunately, through the lack of 
wisdom of this body, we have not accomplished this through the years. 
For that reason, I think today is the day we should start taking action 
to make sure that in the future we will pay for these.
  Every one of us and everyone else who is familiar with what we are 
doing here today has had the experience of having to readjust their 
budgets. Every homeowner sometime during the year experiences a 
breakdown of the air-conditioning, or the refrigerator or the freezer 
or the roof has to be repaired. We do not plan those in our budget, but 
we cannot continually go to the bank and borrow more and more money. 
The country and the Government ought to run in just exactly the same 
way. When we do have these emergencies--and we are going to have them--
I think we should be prepared to make adjustments in our budget.
  This is not meant to be mean-spirited. I do not bring this in that 
way. I think we have a responsibility or at least a historic 
responsibility through tradition to help people who need help, but we 
also have an obligation and a responsibility to the hard-hit taxpayers, 
many of whom are right now digging down deep to pay their taxes and are 
working on those taxes. And there is no hope in sight presently to 
balance the budget sometime in the future.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], with whom I 
serve on the Appropriations Committee and for whom I have a high 
regard, expressed earlier today that he was going to be catcher of a 
task force to find a way to pay for these in the future, and I would 
say that I hope one of the first things he considers as he looks for 
ways to pay for it is to make certain that future disasters--and we are 
going to have them, I am sorry to say; we all recognize this, but I 
hope they never amount to this proportion again--I hope that one of the 
first things Chairman Durbin does is to look to make sure that if we 
have these in the future, we will not mix other things not related to 
that particular disaster. We have to very carefully limit the exposure 
to the American taxpayers, because it is an emergency and they cannot 
crowd everything else into one bill as we have here.
  Thirty percent of this bill has nothing to do with the earthquake in 
California last month, but in posterity future Congresses are going to 
remember, and maybe even this same Congress is going to remember this 
supplemental bill as the southern California earthquake bill of 1994, 
and they are going to look at it and see the total of $10 billion.
  This amendment that I offer will cut $7.4 billion from other spending 
programs. We have gone down through the list and we have selected items 
that will do the least damage to our spending practices and do the 
least damage to the budget, and I think we have a good recommendation. 
Some of these will be considered in other resolutions or amendments 
this afternoon.
  But of that $7.4 billion that we would rescind from planned spending 
in 1994, $2,561,000,000 would come from the rescissions that have 
already passed this House in H.R. 3400 last year and gone to the 
Senate. We have already agreed to take that money out.
  We have two exceptions from that, one of which is the toner that our 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan, had an interest in, and which is 
in that bill, to rescind that toner amendment.
  The other amendment would be to provide something we have already 
done for the widow of our former Congressman, the late Congressman, Mr. 
Henry, for the widow's contribution, as we have always given a 1-year 
salary. That was taken out in the rescission in that H.R. 3400. What I 
have done would restore that historic obligation that we have. I think 
most of us would want to have that.
  The second part of my rescission would be the $750 million that we 
have already agreed, and the President has agreed that we are going to 
use to cut 252,000 out of the work force. I do take one exception to 
what we have agreed to, the Defense Department, which has already cut 
50,000 people out of its work force, the civilian work force. I would 
not give the Defense Department a double hit, but we would provide for 
this 250,000 and we would save those 50,000. We may consider buyouts a 
little bit later, and that may have some impact on this, but as of this 
date we have not, at least as of most recently.
  The third part of my cut would be $3.2 billion coming out of the 
overhead costs, traditional costs, of the various agencies, again 
except defense, because I think all of us recognize we have cut defense 
right down to the bear bone.
  This morning at breakfast, I talked with the Secretary of Defense 
designee. He said we can't cut defense any more. We are marginal right 
now. So I would not take the cuts others will take later today of $1 
billion out of defense spending. We would cut some in defense, but not 
the across-the-board $3.2 billion in defense spending.
  Let me give you some of the items here that would be cut. One hundred 
and fifty million dollars from the SPR account. That is the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve that has been longstanding. Every recent President 
has wanted to delete this. I think at this austere time, we do need to 
take $150 million from that program. It probably is not needed today.
  We would cut, and this might be controversial with some, but the 
community block grants, I would cut $400 million. It takes it back just 
about to the level we had last year. We did increase this. We would 
only cut those who are the least needy in the communities. I know a lot 
of my communities use this. But I also know a lot of them can get along 
without it. We are in a hard pinch this year. It is a choice of whether 
we help those communities or help the communities in California who are 
hurt even worse. So I would cut that program.
  We cut ourselves, too. I know most of us say well, we can't cut our 
franking privilege any further, but I would take another $2 million 
from our own franking. We have to tighten our belts, too. I would cut 
$20 million across the board from the legislative, which would be 
about, as I think, a little over 1 percent. I know we are talking about 
cutting 4.9 percent. That discussion will come up later.
  I would cut $20 million from the World Bank. I think most of us 
recognize the World Bank has been a good program, but at some point, we 
just can't continue to be Santa Claus for every program we think of 
around the world.
  Another large one I would cut would be to cut defense by $132 
million.
  Now, there are some additions. I believe there are seven of them 
added by the Senate last year in a supplemental appropriations bill. To 
my knowledge we didn't have hearings on them in the House. I think 
defense needs to take some cuts. I would cut also the MK-19 grenade 
launcher, which, as I recall, was maybe $15 million. We could cut some 
money from that, for which there has been no great demand.

  Madam Chairman, I would say to the members of this committee meeting 
today, we have a severe problem in our country, not only the earthquake 
in California, but we have not been living within our means. We keep 
putting off the inevitable. I am sure this task force is going to work 
very hard. But if we have our backs to the wall, and bite the bullet 
today, and, yes, we will have to share in that agony of cutting back 
some spending we will have to make, we will have to share, in this 
House, as we should, and the other body would have to share. We will 
have to start today. We just can't put it off, and say this is an 
emergency.
  And, again, I wanted to emphasize here, by enacting my amendment to 
cut $7.4 billion does not slow down the efforts to help the needy in 
California. The money would be available immediately after the 
President signs this legislation. So what I am doing now would just 
require OMB and others to make the adjustments in our spending 
practices that we anticipated we would like to make this year. It will 
not slow the efforts for California. Absolutely not.
  I want to close by saying this. You are going to say, John Myers, you 
are attacking California. You are asking California to be the first in 
holding the line and to share the responsibility for these cuts.
  Not at all. California will not bear unduly on the cuts. Absolutely 
not. In fact, I don't think they get quite as many cuts as I would 
address elsewhere.
  But last year when we had the great floods in the Midwest, I tried to 
do exactly this same thing, that we start biting the bullet and say 
take it out of the spending programs. So I am not being mean to 
California. I am not trying to be mean to any of the victims out there. 
We all want to help them. Our hearts go out to them. We want to put our 
money out to them. But we don't want to put money out we don't have. We 
don't want to drive the national deficit up higher. We don't want to 
drive interest rates up higher. This is the way to be responsible, help 
people, help every taxpayer in the country.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and I seek to control 
the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
The amendment would impose $5 billion of additional rescissions on top 
of the rescissions included in H.R. 3511. The impacts of these 
additional rescissions would be major; however, because vast majority 
of the cuts in this amendments are across-the-board type reductions, 
the specific impacts are not known and cannot be definitely assessed.
  These cuts generally apply to personnel and administrative 
activities. No one knows how and which agencies will be cut and their 
impacts. We do know the cuts are large--so large that there is no way 
they won't affect everyone. There will be impacts on law enforcement, 
air traffic control, drug enforcement, immigration, IRS, education, 
human services, food inspection, and many others.
  More detailed impacts will be offered by others as we proceed.
  I want everyone to know that when you take a double count reduction 
on personnel funding and then restrict travel and other administrative 
needs you drastically affect the productivity of the work force. New 
employees are not getting training. What good are new FBI agents if 
they can't be trained and made productive. What good are new meat 
inspectors if they can't be trained? What good is cancer research and 
development if new knowledge can't be transferred effectively to those 
who need it? What good are researchers if they can't attend seminars to 
keep up with the latest technology?
  Let's not make mindless reductions without a careful analysis of 
impacts. Adoption of this amendment would have major impacts on 
Government operations and on the people it serves.
  Vote ``no'' and defeat this approach.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the highly 
respected gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking Member [Mr. McDade].
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I want to take this time to commend my 
dear friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], for the strong 
effort he is making to offer the House an opportunity at deficit 
reduction. The gentleman put in the countless hours that were necessary 
to develop an alternative that is point specific. He starts with 
roughly $3 billion that the House has already identified as 
rescissions, and goes up the hill with additional proposals to a total 
of over $7 billion, all of them point specific and available for the 
House to work its will on on the matter of deficit reduction.
  In my view, he has addressed the issue responsibly. He persevered, 
went up to the Committee on Rules, and through the courtesy of the 
Committee on Rules, was given an opportunity to offer this amendment.
  The House has before it the clear choice of whether or not to take 
the $3 billion that indeed our friend the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio] will offer at some time later in this king-of-the-hill 
process under this contorted procedure.

                              {time}  1530

  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] takes that and builds on it 
and builds it to $7.5 billion. It is a responsible act, and I hope that 
it will be passed.
  Again, I say to my friend from Indiana, he has done a fine job in 
being point specific about where he would apply this deficit reduction.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise with great reluctance to oppose the amendment of my colleague 
from Indiana. I oppose it largely for two reasons.
  First, this is an urgent bill designed to provide assistance to the 
victims of the disaster in southern California. To suggest that, when 
we face such a disaster, one can quickly with much policy forethought 
effectively offset a sizable number of dollars without having the 
appropriate hearings, the analysis by the various committees involved, 
and time to deliberate and perfect, is a bewildering thought to me.
  In this specific amendment, there are items that I agree with. There 
are also items that concern me an awful lot. I'll speak to that later.
  To just arbitrarily suggest that we take $400 million out of CDBG's 
to our local communities, should give us all pause to reconsider. This 
could very well lead to cuts that could have a significant impact upon 
towns that I know nothing about. I would be very, very hesitant to just 
arbitrarily say $400 million is the appropriate figure.
  Beyond that, in the past, we have seen across-the-board cuts that 
suggest, we can take administrative overhead out of the bureaucracy. It 
is easy to say. Go whack the bureaucracy, but that ignores difficult 
economies applied in our Committee on Appropriations.
  I strongly urge the House to be very careful about an amendment like 
this.
  The second point that I would like to make is that if such an 
amendment does pass, I am very concerned about what might happen in the 
other body to such an offset amendment.
  When we start battling over which ox ought to be gored in a cross-
section of cuts and the other body begins to consider such amendments, 
that could slow down the process. Indeed, this kind of amendment could 
be the very factor that delays enough of the process that we will not 
get this bill to the President's desk by the time we leave here on 
February 11.
  It is critical that we not confuse the issue. I urge a no vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], a gentleman who knows 
something about the earthquake.
  Mr. PACKARD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, I support this amendment offered by our colleague, 
John Myers. As one of the senior Republican Members on the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Myers has demonstrated great leadership 
in his efforts to bring sanity to the budget process. This amendment 
reflects a responsible, practical approach to this disaster aid bill.
  Time after time I hear this Congress talk about how important it is 
to practice fiscal responsibility and pay for our spending. We have a 
chance here to show that we actually support that policy.
  When the House considered emergency disaster aid for the floods last 
year, I supported an amendment to offset that spending. I support 
offsetting spending for the disaster in my State for the same reason I 
supported offsets for the Midwest floods.
  We cannot afford to continually fund disaster aid off budget. Every 
year this Congress faces a disaster aid bill and every year we try to 
do it off budget. Although we don't know what disasters might hit this 
year, we do know that a disaster will hit somewhere. We have to start 
now to plan for disasters and pay for them as we go.
  It's important that aid for this disaster goes forward. I think it's 
equally as important that we don't stick our children and our 
grandchildren with the bill.
  I strongly urge you to support a reasonable, responsible approach to 
this bill and support the Myers amendment.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  (Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
  The amendment would rescind $750 million of 1994 salary funds from 
all Federal agencies, except the Department of Defense. The amendment 
would also rescind $3.2 billion in administrative expenses--items other 
than salary costs--from all Federal agencies, except the Defense 
Department. Both of these rescissions would be distributed by the 
administration.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment would have a disastrous impact. It 
would cause Federal employees to be furloughed or involuntarily 
separated--or in a more understandable term, fired. The agencies under 
the VA-HUD Subcommittee barely have sufficient salary funds for 19994.
  Madam Chairman, because this amendment exempts Defense employees--
about 40 percent of the total Federal civilian employment--the 
reduction is applied to a smaller base. Further, because this provision 
could not be implemented until the last half of the year, the real 
impact is doubled.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs has a little over 10 percent of 
the total Federal employment. That number becomes closer to 20 percent 
when Defense employees are not included. A reduction of this magnitude 
will simply mean that fewer veterans will receive necessary medical 
care.
  I received a letter from VA Secretary Jesse Brown today urging the 
Congress to reject any proposal to offset the costs of the 
supplemental. He is very concerned about any attempt to reduce funds 
for medical personnel which would result in a large number of veterans 
not receiving care--both on an inpatient and outpatient basis.
  Madam Chairman, we should not be reducing medical care and treatment 
for veterans.
  I urge Members to vote against the Myers amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  No one has ever said that this would be an easy process. I do not 
relish the responsibility I feel I have to come here today to try to 
pay for it in some fashion. It did not come off the top of my head this 
morning as I was shaving.
  We had our staff go through the various subcommittees of 
Appropriations to see what priorities were absolutely necessary, what 
areas we had had hearings, and the necessity of the various programs.
  And what we have selected here are those areas that will do the least 
damage, have the lowest priorities.
  The suggestion has been made that we are going to deny assistance in 
very, very many categories. As an example, the 3.2 funding that the 
gentleman was speaking about here.
  I have asked OMB to give us an example of that. How much money is 
actually going to be affected by this. OMB said someplace between $50 
and $110 billion.
  Our own Congressional Budget Office says it would be $78 billion. Let 
us assume 78, about halfway between.
  What we are asking here is a 4-percent reduction. Does anyone deny 
that these agencies have the selection, not cutting salaries, not 
cutting people, giving benefits to veterans or giving beds to veterans, 
patients, we are not asking that at all.
  Do Members think that the Veterans' Administration is going to do 
this? Do they think there cannot be a 4-percent cut made in many areas?
  We are asking most of the taxpayers of this country to pay more in 
new taxes this year than 4 percent. How much consideration did this 
body give them last year, as we increased gasoline tax more than that 
last year? Yet today we are asking our own agencies to tighten the belt 
to the tune of 4 percent.

                              {time}  1540

  In many instances, that is not to know what they got in 1993, but 
only maybe stabilizing where it was. Let me tell the Members what items 
the OMB tells us would be impacted by this: travel and transportation 
of persons, we are not going to move some agencies from here to West 
Virginia or someplace else. We are going to wait to do that.
  Travel of persons. We are not maybe going to make quite as many 
visits, so is that going to be cutting anybody, hurting anybody?
  Transportation of things. We are going to have to cut down. We are 
going to have to economize. We may have to double up, and instead of 
making two trips a week, and we will put everybody in one vehicle once 
a week.
  Rental payment to others. We could close up someplace. The Department 
of Agriculture is an example.
  One amendment we are going to consider later today takes $13 million 
out of reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. Those of us on 
that committee have been wanting to consolidate, colocate. I did not 
include that, but part of that would be, I think, rental payment to 
others that we could consolidate and save rental.

  Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous, which covers a 
multitude of sins, miscellaneous.
  Printing and reproductions. We have printing; pick up the mail this 
morning and see the stack of mail there is; printing. We can save 4 
percent of that very easily.
  Consulting services. That is a catch-all. We have more consultants 
around here than anybody ought to have. Most industries cannot afford 
what we have, consulting, so I would cut consulting services and other 
services, the catchalls.
  Supplies and materials. That may be more difficult to reduce, but we 
are not saying that we have to take an arbitrary 4-percent cut. We 
leave that up to the agency to decide where to make this reduction in 
spending, but we are not spending, or at least I have no intentions of 
cutting intended, valuable, needed services by any of the agencies that 
we have the responsibility of appropriating the funds for, 
appropriating the money from our taxpayers.
  Let us start thinking about our taxpayers instead of ourselves, 
protecting our own fiefdom here, that we do not want any agency to be 
pinched a little bit, we do not want to cause them inconvenience, so we 
will put it on the backs of the taxpayers.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I want to say, I think this amendment is 
well-intentioned, and some of the cuts I would personally not differ 
with, but the fact is if we take it as a whole, what it really does is 
repair the damage done to California by the earthquake, and transfer 
the shockwaves to the rest of the country.
  I want to give the Members some specific examples of the negative 
effects this will have. This proposition calls for $3.1 billion in 
administrative expense reductions. It sounds harmless, but when we take 
it down to the individual agency level, let me give some examples.
  What it means for the Social Security Administration is that they 
would have to lay off 2,000 FTE equivalents, which, because we are 
already halfway into the fiscal year, means they would have to lay off 
about 4,000 people. Those are people who are supposed to process all of 
the claims under the Social Security Administration.
  Do we really want to slow down that process further? Do we really 
want to erode the service that we are providing to seniors and disabled 
people? Do we really want to see curtailed hours? Do we really want to 
increase waiting times to get checks and to get questions answered?
  Medicare contractors. Do we really want to slow down that claims 
process even more? Do we really want to delay additionally the 
oversight that is done for the waste and fraud? I do not think so.
  In education, the gentleman says that this is only a 4-percent cut, 
but since 1980 the administrative budget for the Department of 
Education has already been cut by 30 percent, 30 percent. This 
amendment means that we are going to have to postpone the 
implementation of the new direct loan program which this Congress just 
passed. According to the agency, it will also reduce the effort they 
are trying to make on fraud and abuse in existing programs.
  If we think that is a good idea, take a look at the two front page 
stories in the New York Times the last 2 days, talking about the 
billions that are being lost in the existing programs right now because 
we have hollowed out our Government and we have hollowed out the 
ability of these agencies to oversee the expenditure of the dollars 
which we appropriated.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment in my view, in many cases, is penny 
wise and pound foolish. Do not do it. It is a big mistake.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Myers amendment. Let me give two reasons. We first should 
not be dealing with this kind of last-minute attempt to come up with 
emergency relief while the people of southern California and those 
living in the Midwest are waiting for vital disaster services.
  That is unfair to the victims who want to get their lives back in 
order, who want to get back in their homes, who want to see some 
normalcy in their lives, to be really victimized by our efforts here on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  The Speaker has appointed a bipartisan disaster task force to look to 
funding these disasters in a sensible, long-term fashion, not in the 
heat of the moment. Cobbling together various cuts in an attempt to try 
and find some way to deal with each disaster as it occurs is poor 
policy. That is the thoughtful and sensible way to deal with disasters. 
This is not.
  Second, when we look at the specific things which my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana, suggests we do, I am afraid even he does not 
want to do these things. He has sat very patiently and dutifully in my 
subcommittee working on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and on the 
Food and Drug Administration appropriations.
  I would say to my colleague and friend, what he is doing with his 
amendment sounds innocuous, but the gentleman will be cutting back the 
salaries available to the Farmers Home Administration, which falls in 
the category of other expenses under the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. He is reducing the number of personnel who are trying to 
help us out of the Midwest flood disaster, when we should be increasing 
them.
  The gentleman is also cutting back on travel expenses for poultry and 
meat inspectors. If those inspectors are not on the job, the workers at 
the processing plants cannot go to work each day.
  In the Food and Drug Administration, the gentleman is cutting travel 
expenses for the people who are inspecting mammography clinics, 
inspecting medical clinics, things which the gentleman and I treasure 
and value as important for the public health of America.
  What appears to be an innocuous amendment is a very dangerous 
amendment. Let us rely on this bipartisan task force to give us 
direction on a sensible and long-term response.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to both my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, as well as 
my other colleague, as far as what we are doing here.
  Madam Chairman, other than one section providing for the 252,000, 
which we did not assign this subcommittee on this action to cut 252,000 
people out of a job, what we are doing is reducing those numbers. 
However, OMB will make the final decision, not us, about who is 
reduced, what agencies can take the cuts.
  I quite agree with the gentleman, the Food and Drug Administration 
needs additional people. We do not cut the Food and Drug 
Administration. OMB might. There are other areas that can be reduced 
where there will not be as great an impact on the safety and security 
for our constituents.
  To the gentleman from Wisconsin, I would say I do not cut education, 
not at all. Yes, we are going to have to make some accommodations for 
travel. No doubt about it. However, regarding the programs, it does not 
cut one education program. It does not cut any of the loans or grants 
for education. It does not touch those whatsoever.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Klein].
  Mr. KLEIN. Madam Chairman, my heart goes out to the people of 
southern California. We clearly need to act and act quickly to provide 
them much-needed relief. As a strong advocate of cutting spending, 
ideally I would like to have offsetting cuts for every penny in this 
emergency appropriation. For that reason, I will support the so-called 
Fazio amendment, which provides $2.5 billion that I know is also 
contained in this amendment.
  Beyond that, I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules which 
would have provided all of the necessary offsetting cuts, some $21 
billion over 5 years, without cutting any domestic program. It would 
have done so by cutting European burden sharing, the space station, 
helium reserve, the advanced liquid metal reactor, programs such as 
that. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did not allow that 
amendment.
  By contrast, this and other amendments cut critical domestic 
services. I do not believe we should pay for this disaster by depriving 
the people of New Jersey of much needed funds for housing, for economic 
development, for seniors, for highway and transportation projects.

                              {time}  1550

  I hope that after this bill is passed we can reconsider my amendment 
which will give us the necessary offsetting cuts without cutting any 
critical domestic programs.
  I oppose the Myers amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I apologize for taking this time, but I know everyone who 
has spoken against this amendment means well, and I appreciate that 
criticism. But many things said here are not quite accurate. There has 
been no intent to cut some programs that were described as being cut, 
and they will not be cut.
  We all want to help the people of California, but we also I feel have 
to have an eye on the constituents who are still the taxpayers in the 
rest of the country. I think what I am saying this afternoon, most of 
the country is in agreement. And there is not a soul today who is aware 
of what we are doing here who has not had to change their budget during 
the year. The intention is to spend money a certain way, but because an 
emergency comes up we have to make adjustments, and that is exactly all 
we are asking to do here.
  In closing, I want to say the arguments that I have heard here kind 
of remind me of years ago back in rural Indiana where I come from, 
where things are kind of simple out there and we always reduce them to 
things that we can understand, maybe a parable sometimes. I remember 
one time making an argument about something I thought ought to happen 
in the local community and I said, ``Yes, I know we can't afford it, 
but we cannot afford not to.'' And their were various arguments, and 
finally a gentleman stood up and said, ``Well, now, what you sound like 
is a friend of mine who says everybody wants to go to heaven, but 
nobody wants to die.'' And I think that is what we are doing here 
today. Everybody wants to do this, but we do not want to pay the price 
elsewhere.
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Myers 
amendment. It is vague, ill-conceived and onerous.
  It is vague because it proposes cuts--nearly $4 billion, for example, 
in full-time equivalent positions and administrative expenses--that are 
so general in nature that it is unclear how they would be implemented, 
and what effect they would have.
  It is ill-conceived because it circumvents and prejudges the 
legislative process. It addresses issues which have not gone through 
the normal committee process. Much of what is included has not 
undergone congressional scrutiny, either through hearings or markups. 
In addition, the end result as provided for in the amendment prejudges 
that very process.
  Lastly, the amendment is onerous because it includes reductions over 
and above what is contained in H.R. 3511, the rescission bill as passed 
by the House.
  Let me focus on some of the specifics.
  How could we possibly approve a $3.2 billion reduction in agency 
administrative expenses or a $750 million reduction in full-time 
equivalent positions without knowing what this means? We don't know how 
that would affect the efficiency and operation of ongoing Federal 
programs and activities. For example, FEMA, the very agency that is 
responsible for natural disaster assistance and has people in 
California today doing just that, would be subject to this reduction. 
What does it mean for FEMA and for the citizens it serves? Certainly we 
don't need to exacerbate the current situation by creating inefficiency 
where efficiency is critical.
  Furthermore, the amendment includes reductions over and above H.R. 
3511, some in public works and transportation programs--TVA, $10 
million; EDA $25 million; and aviation education, $13 million--which 
have no basis in fact and which address areas already targeted for 
reductions in H.R. 3511.
  Madam Chairman, some have said that expenditure for this disaster 
should not be allowed to proceed unless equal cuts are made in the 
budget. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that we have never 
before required offsetting cuts when making a supplemental 
appropriation for a disaster. Never--not for Andrew, not for Iniki, not 
for the Midwest floods, not for Hugo, not for Loma Prieta--never. To 
now require that we go through that at exercise before providing 
assistance in this one case would be highly unfair and discriminatory. 
Accordingly, I urge a no vote on the Myers amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out the effects of 
this amendment in the legislature branch.
  The amendment to the disaster supplemental rescinds 1.3 percent of 
the funds appropriated in the fiscal year 1994 Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act. Also, House mail is rescinded by $2 million in 
another section of the amendment.
  Penny-Kasich had a comparable 7.5 percent rescission, but earlier in 
the year. At this point in the budget year, the 1.3 percent will 
probably equate to close to 3 percent of remaining balances. This 
assumes an early to mid-February approval of the bill by the President 
and 1 month to develop an employee and administrative cost-reduction 
plan to achieve the $34 million savings required.


                                 impact

  There are few options in the legislative branch in making reductions 
to current operations. The resources of the legislative branch are 
basically people and the computers and other administrative machinery 
that support the staff.
  Our employees are among the lowest in average salary in Federal 
service.
  For the approximately 30,000 legislative branch staff covered by this 
amendment, and assuming an average annual salary and benefit 
compensation of $50,000, a $34 million rescission would equate to about 
1,360 staff--a 4\1/2\ percent staffing reduction.
  A proportionate reduction allocation of 1,360 would work out to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total                
                                                approximate   Reduction 
                                                   staff       required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House staff...................................       10,000          445
Senate staff..................................        7,550          310
Library of Congress...........................        4,800          219
General Accounting Office.....................        4,800          219
Architect of the Capitol......................        2,000           97
Capitol Police................................        1,300           67
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................       30,450        1,357
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         impact on house staff

  Such a personnel reduction would be accomplished by reducing: Members 
office staff by one per office; committees by an average two to three 
per committee; House computer personnel by seven to eight; Doorkeepers, 
finance clerks, floor clerks, and so forth, by 35 plus.
  Congressional Budget Office: 10 to 220 staff.
  Office of Technology Assessment: 7 to 8 of 205.
  Congressional Research Service: 40 of 770.
  General Accounting Office: 625 of 4,800. In GAO's case, a much higher 
proportion of staff will be effected because of the requirements of 
their employee rights regulations.
  Architect of the Capitol: 97 of 2,000; an alternative would be a 1-
month furlough for each legislative branch employee.


                             other impacts

  Reduction in reading room hours at the Library of Congress.
  Either 50 or so depository libraries removed from program or 
significant reduction in Federal documents delivery.
  Reductions of 3 to 8 percent in braille and audio publications for 
700,000 books for blind and physically handicapped patrons of Library 
of Congress National Library Service.
  Other reductions and delays in resolving Federal contractor bid 
protests--GAO; David-Bacon employee settlements--GAO workload; meeting 
congressional needs for CBO scorekeeping, GAO audits, CRS services to 
members and committees; and an unknown cutback in GPO printing of 
Congressional documents such as the Congressional Record, hearings, and 
so forth; and further delays in processing copyright registrations and 
royalty payments to copyright owners.
  Mail Rescission: A $2 million mail rescission will cause termination 
of all bulk mailings from Members in about the August timeframe. this 
account may even now be underfunded at the current appropriation level 
of $40 million.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 211, not voting 20, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               AYES--207

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levy
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews (TX)
     Bentley
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Ford (MI)
     Green
     Hastings
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Markey
     Mfume
     Murphy
     Owens
     Reynolds
     Shepherd
     Smith (OR)
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Weldon

                              {time}  1614

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois 
     against.

  Messrs. ACKERMAN, FARR of California, and KIM changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WILSON, McCURDY, SLATTERY, ROWLAND and BISHOP changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. nussle

  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 2, printed in the Report of the Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Nussle: Page 1, after line 2, 
     insert the following:
                  TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
       Page 1, line 3, strike ``That the'' and insert ``The''.
       Page 19, line 18, strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$400,000,000''.
       Page 22, after line 13, add the following new title:
              TITLE II--OFFSETTING REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING
Subtitle A--Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
                  Administration, and Related Agencies

     SEC. 2101. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR PUBLIC LAW 480 FOOD FOR 
                   PEACE PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Public Law 
     480 Program Account'' in the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
     Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111)--
       (1) $69,378,000 is rescinded from the amounts provided for 
     the cost of direct credit agreements under title I of the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and 
     the Food for Progress Act of 1985; and
       (2) $56,017,000 is rescinded from the amount provided for 
     commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
     pursuant to title III of the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954.

     SEC. 2102. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AGRICULTURE BUILDING AND 
                   FACILITIES ACCOUNT.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Cooperative 
     State Research Service--Buildings and Facilities'' in the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     111), $56,874,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2103. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

       Of the funds made available for the Department of 
     Agriculture in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), $13,000,000 is rescinded. The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall allocate such rescission among 
     the appropriate accounts, and shall submit to the Congress a 
     report setting forth such allocation.

     SEC. 2104. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE 
                   FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Farmers 
     Home Administration--Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program 
     Account'' in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-111) for the cost of direct section 502 
     loans, $35,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2105. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN 
                   FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Rural 
     Development Loan Fund Program Account'' in the Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111) for the 
     cost of direct loans, $20,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2106. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR RURAL WATER AND WASTE 
                   DISPOSAL GRANTS.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Rural Water 
     and Waste Disposal Grants'' in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), 
     $25,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2107. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   FOOD PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Food and 
     Nutrition Service--Commodity Supplemental Food Program'' in 
     the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-111), $12,600,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2108. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS 
                   FOR SELECTED GROUPS.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Food 
     Donations Programs for Selected Groups'' in the Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), 
     $6,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2109. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH 
                   SERVICE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Cooperative 
     State Research Service'' in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), 
     $30,002,000 is rescinded, including $20,213,000 for contracts 
     and grants for agricultural research under the Act of August 
     4, 1965, and $9,789,000 for necessary expenses of Cooperative 
     State Research Service activities.

     SEC. 2110. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION 
                   AND CONSERVATION SERVICE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service--
     Salaries and Expenses'' in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), 
     $12,167,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2111. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Soil 
     Conservation Service--Conservation Operations'' in the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     111), $12,167,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2112. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND 
                   TELEPHONE LOANS PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Rural 
     Electrification Administration--Rural Electrification and 
     Telephone Loans Program Account'' in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111) for the 
     cost of 5 percent rural telephone loans, $6,445,000 is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2113. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR HUMAN NUTRITION 
                   INFORMATION SERVICE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Agricultural Research Service'' in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), 
     $11,000,000 is rescinded from the Human Nutrition Information 
     Service.

     SEC. 2114. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 
                   SERVICE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Agricultural Research Service'' in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-111), 
     $16,000,000 is rescinded.
Subtitle B--Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
                          and Related Agencies

     SEC. 2151. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR WEATHER OFFICE CLOSURE 
                   CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, 
     and Facilities'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $20,000,000 is rescinded, to be 
     derived from the National Weather Service.

     SEC. 2152. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NOAA RESEARCH FLEET.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration--Fleet Modernization, 
     Shipbuilding and Conversion'' in the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $77,064,000 is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2153. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NOAA ADD-ONS.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration'' in the Departments 
     of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), there 
     are rescinded the following amounts from the following 
     accounts:
       (1) ``Operations, Research, and Facilities'', $37,800,000.
       (2) ``Construction'', $15,800,000.
       (3) ``Aircraft Procurement and Modernization'', 
     $21,400,000.

     SEC. 2154. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR EDA.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Economic 
     Development Administration--Economic Development Assistance 
     Programs'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $125,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2155. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
                   FACILITIES.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration--Public 
     Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction'' in 
     the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-121), $15,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2156. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR LEGAL SERVICES 
                   CORPORATION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Legal 
     Services Corporation--Payment to the Legal Services 
     Corporation'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $20,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2158. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR SMALL BUSINESS 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Small 
     Business Administration--Salaries and Expenses'' in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     121), $13,100,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2159. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 
                   PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Department 
     of Commerce--National Institute of Standards and Technology--
     Industrial Technology Services'' in the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), 
     $100,000,000 is rescinded from the advanced technology 
     program.

     SEC. 2160. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES INFORMATION 
                   AGENCY.

       (a) Salaries and Expenses.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``United States Information Agency--
     Salaries and Expenses'' in the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $6,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       (b) Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs.--Of the 
     funds made available under the heading ``United States 
     Information Agency--Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Programs'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $50,000,000 is rescinded.
       (c) North/South Center.--Of the funds made available under 
     the heading ``United States Information Agency--North/South 
     Center'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-121), $8,700,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2161. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
                   DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Department 
     of State--Administration of Foreign Affairs--Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
     and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $600,000 is rescinded.
      Subtitle C--Department of Defense and Military Construction

     SEC. 2201. RESCISSION OF CERTAIN DEFENSE ADD-ONS.

       (a) Military Construction.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``Military Construction, Army Reserve'' in 
     the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-110), $15,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the 
     Georgia-Fort McPherson Command Headquarters, Phase I, 
     project.
       (b) Defense Procurement.--Of the funds made available in 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-139), the following amounts are rescinded from the 
     following accounts and programs:
       (1) ``Other Procurement, Army'', $15,000,000, to be derived 
     from common hardware and software.
       (2) ``Other Procurement, Navy'', $30,000,000, to be derived 
     from spare and repair parts.
       (3) ``Other Procurement, Navy'', $12,000,000, to be derived 
     from weapons range support equipment.
       (4) ``Other Procurement, Army'', $10,000,000, to be derived 
     from tactical trailers/dolly sets.
       (5) ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', $50,000,000, to 
     be derived from advance procurement of LHD-7.

     SEC. 2202. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR MK-19 GRENADE LAUNCHER 
                   PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Procurement 
     of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     139), $15,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the MK-19 
     automatic grenade launcher program.

     SEC. 2203. RESCISSION OF CERTAIN DEFENSE OPERATION AND 
                   MAINTENANCE FUNDS.

       Of the funds made available in the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-139), the following 
     amounts are rescinded from the following accounts:
       (1) ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $88,020,000 to be 
     derived from general reduction DBOF, and $15,180,000 to be 
     derived from inventories.
       (2) ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $109,270,000 to be 
     derived from general reduction DBOF, and $27,555,000 to be 
     derived from inventories.
       (3) ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $94,140,000 
     to be derived from general reduction DBOF, and $12,265,000 to 
     be derived from inventories.

     SEC. 2204. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR SPACELIFTER PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     139), $10,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the new 
     medium lift vehicle (Spacelifter) program.

     SEC. 2205. RESCISSION OF CERTAIN DEFENSE MILITARY 
                   CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.

       Of the funds made available in the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-110), the following 
     amounts are rescinded from the following accounts:
       (1) ``Military Construction, Army'', $22,319,000.
       (2) ``Military Construction, Navy'', $13,969,000.
       (3) ``Military Construction, Air Force'', $24,787,000.
       (4) ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'', $13,663,000.
       (5) ``Military Construction, Army National Guard'', 
     $7,568,000.
       (6) ``Military Construction, Air National Guard'', 
     $6,187,000.
       (7) ``Military Construction, Army Reserve'', $2,551,000.
       (8) ``Military Construction, Naval Reserve'', $626,000.
       (9) ``Military Construction, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $1,862,000.
       (10) ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure'', 
     $70,000,000.
       (11) ``Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III'', 
     $437,692,000, except that, within funds available for such 
     account for fiscal year 1994, not less than $200,000,000 
     shall be available solely for environmental restoration.
                Subtitle D--Energy and Water Development

     SEC. 2251. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR MODULAR HIGH-TEMPERATURE 
                   GAS-COOLED REACTOR PROJECT.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Department 
     of Energy--Energy Supply, Research and Development 
     Activities'' in the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-126), $6,000,000 is 
     rescinded, to be derived from the gas turbine-modular helium 
     reactor program.

     SEC. 2252. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Department 
     of Energy--Energy Supply, Research and Development 
     Activities'' in the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-126), $70,000,000 is 
     rescinded, to be derived from the fusion energy program.

     SEC. 2253. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT.

       The unobligated balance of the funds in the SPR petroleum 
     account on the date of the enactment of this Act is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2254. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY 
                   AUTHORITY FUND.

       Of the funds in the Area and Regional Account of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, $23,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2255. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR APPALACHIAN REGIONAL 
                   COMMISSION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Appalachian 
     Regional Commission'' in the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-126), $35,000,000 is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2256. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR ENERGY SUPPLY, RESEARCH 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Energy 
     Supply, Research and Development Activities'' in the Energy 
     and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     126), $97,300,000 is rescinded. Such reduction shall be taken 
     as a general reduction, applied to each program equally, so 
     as not to eliminate or disproportionately reduce any program, 
     project, or activity in the Energy Supply, Research and 
     Development Activities account as included in the reports 
     accompanying such Act.

     SEC. 2257. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR URANIUM SUPPLY AND 
                   ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Uranium 
     Supply and Enrichment Activities'' in Public Law 102-377 and 
     prior years' Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
     Acts, $42,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2258. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR LOW-PRIORITY WATER 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Corps of Engineers General Investigations.--Of the 
     funds made available under the heading ``Corps of Engineers-
     Civil--General Investigations'' in the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-126), 
     $24,970,000 is rescinded, to be derived from projects that--
       (1) are not continuations of ongoing work under contract;
       (2) are not economically justified, or environmentally 
     beneficial in a manner commensurate with costs;
       (3) are not environmentally acceptable;
       (4) are not in compliance with standard cost sharing;
       (5) do not have available the necessary non-Federal 
     sponsorship and funding;
       (6) represent a Federal assumption of traditionally non-
     Federal responsibility; or
       (7) have not completed normal executive branch project 
     review requirements.
       (b) Corps of Engineers Construction.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
     Construction, General'' in the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-126), $97,319,000 is 
     rescinded, to be derived from projects that--
       (1) are not continuations of ongoing work under contract;
       (2) are not economically justified, or environmentally 
     beneficial in a manner commensurate with costs;
       (3) are not environmentally acceptable;
       (4) are not in compliance with standard cost sharing;
       (5) do not have available the necessary non-Federal 
     sponsorship and funding;
       (6) represent a Federal assumption of traditionally non-
     Federal responsibility; or
       (7) have not completed normal executive branch project 
     review requirements.
       (c) Bureau of Reclamation.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``Department of the Interior--Bureau of 
     Reclamation--Construction Program'' in the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-126), 
     $16,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from projects that--
       (1) are not continuations of ongoing work under contract;
       (2) in the case of new projects, are inconsistent with the 
     priorities of the Secretary of the Interior;
       (3) are not environmentally beneficial in a manner 
     commensurate with costs; or
       (4) do not have available the necessary non-Federal cost 
     sharing.
 Subtitle E--Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

     SEC. 2301. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR WORLD BANK.

       Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development'' in the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-87)--
       (1) $27,910,500 provided for paid-in capital is rescinded; 
     and
       (2) $902,439,500 provided for callable capital is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2302. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
                   ASSOCIATION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Contribution to the International Development Association'' 
     in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-87), 
     $67,189,143 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2303. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN MILITARY 
                   FINANCING.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Foreign 
     Military Financing Program'' in the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-87), $25,721,000 is rescinded, to be 
     derived from grants.

     SEC. 2304. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Population Fund for Africa.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Agency for International 
     Development--Population Fund for Africa'' in the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-87), $200,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       (b) Population, Development Assistance.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Agency for International 
     Development--Population, Development Assistance'' in the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-87), $130,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       (c) Development Assistance Fund.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Agency for International 
     Development--Development Assistance Fund'' in appropriations 
     Acts for fiscal year 1994 and prior fiscal years to carry out 
     the provisions of sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, $250,000,000 is rescinded.
      Subtitle F--Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

     SEC. 2351. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR ARTS AND HUMANITIES 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Of the funds made available under each of the headings 
     ``National Endowment for the Arts'', ``National Endowment for 
     the Humanities'', ``Smithsonian Institution'', and ``National 
     Gallery of Art'' in the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-138), 
     2 percent is rescinded.

     SEC. 2352. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                   INTERIOR.

       Of the funds made available for the Department of the 
     Interior in the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-138), there 
     are rescinded the following amounts from the following 
     accounts:
       (1) ``Bureau of Land Management--Land Acquisition'', 
     $6,061,000.
       (2) ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Land 
     Acquisition'', $41,327,000.
       (3) ``National Park Service--Land Acquisition and State 
     Assistance'', $30,000,000.
       (4) ``United States Geological Survey--Surveys, 
     Investigations, and Research'', $30,000,000.
       (5) ``Minerals Management Service--Leasing and Royalty 
     Management'', $20,000,000.
       (6) ``Bureau of Mines--Mines and Minerals'', $10,000,000.
       (7) ``National Biological Survey--Research, Inventories, 
     and Surveys'', $20,000,000.

     SEC. 2353. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FOREST SERVICE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Department 
     of Agriculture--Forest Service--Land Acquisition'' in the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-138), $32,125,000 is 
     rescinded.
Subtitle G--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, 
                          and Related Agencies

     SEC. 2371. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT 
                   HAVE LARGELY ACHIEVED THEIR PURPOSE.

       (a) Library Construction.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``Department of Education--Libraries'' in 
     the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-112), $11,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived 
     from public library construction.
       (b) School Improvement Programs.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Department of Education--School 
     Improvement Programs'' in the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-112)--
       (1) $8,300,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the follow 
     through program; and
       (2) $6,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the law-
     related education program.
       (c) Law School Clinical Experience.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``Department of Education--Higher 
     Education'' in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-112), $1,800,000 is rescinded, to be 
     derived from the law school clinical experience program.

     SEC. 2372. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR DISLOCATED WORKERS 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Employment 
     and Training Administration--Training and Employment 
     Services'' in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-112), $150,000,000 is rescinded, to be 
     derived from grants to States.
                     Subtitle H--Legislative Branch

     SEC. 2401. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

       (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for each 
     account in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-69), there is rescinded an amount equal to 2.8 
     percent of such funds.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
       (1) funds made available under the heading ``Congressional 
     Operations--Senate''; or
       (2) funds for which amounts are rescinded by section 2402.

     SEC. 2402. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE FRANKING.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``House of 
     Representatives--Salaries and Expenses'' in the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-69), $5,000,000 
     is rescinded, to be derived from ``Official Mail Costs''.
     Subtitle I--Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

     SEC. 2451. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR MAGLEV PROTOTYPE 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Federal 
     Railroad Administration--Railroad Research and Development'' 
     in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-122), $10,000,000 is 
     rescinded, to be derived from magnetic levitation research 
     and analysis activities.

     SEC. 2452. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AIRWAY SCIENCE PROGRAM, 
                   COLLEGIATE TRAINING INITIATIVE, AND AIR CARRIER 
                   MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN TRAINING FACILITY GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) FAA Operations.--Of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``Federal Aviation Administration--Operations'' in 
     the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-122), $2,750,000 is 
     rescinded, to be derived from grants to the Mid-American 
     Aviation Resource Consortium and vocational technical 
     institutions.
       (b) FAA Facilities and Equipment.--Of the unobligated 
     balance of funds made available under the heading ``Federal 
     Aviation Administration--Facilities and Equipment'' in 
     appropriations Acts for fiscal year 1994 and prior fiscal 
     years, $40,257,111 is rescinded, to be derived from the 
     airway science program.

     SEC. 2453. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE 
                   COMMISSION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Interstate 
     Commerce Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' in the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-122), $10,000,000 is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2454. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR GRANTS-IN-AID FOR 
                   AIRPORTS.

       Of the funds provided under the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982, for grants-in-aid for airport 
     planning and development and noise compatibility planning and 
     programs, there is rescinded $488,200,000 of the amount in 
     excess of the funds made available for obligation in the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-122).

     SEC. 2455. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       Of the funds made available for specific highway projects 
     that are not yet under construction, $85,774,222 are 
     rescinded, except that no funds shall be rescinded from any 
     emergency relief project funded under section 125 of title 
     23, United States Code. For the purposes of this section, a 
     project shall be deemed to be not under construction unless a 
     construction contract for physical construction has been 
     awarded by the State, municipality, or other contracting 
     authority.

     SEC. 2456. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Formula Grants.--Of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``Federal Transit Administration--Formula Grants'' in 
     the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-122), $250,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
       (b) Discretionary Grants.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``Federal Transit Administration--
     Discretionary Grants'' in the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     122), $40,000,000 is rescinded.
      Subtitle J--Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government

     SEC. 2501. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR BATF.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--Salaries and Expenses'' in the 
     Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-123), $2,000,000 is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 2502. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 
                   FEDERAL OFFICES AND COURTHOUSES.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``General 
     Services Administration--Federal Buildings Fund'' in the 
     Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-123), $160,000,000 is 
     rescinded.
   Subtitle K--Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
                 Development, and Independent Agencies

     SEC. 2551. RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR PUBLIC 
                   HOUSING NEW CONSTRUCTION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development--Housing Programs--Annual 
     Contributions for Assisted Housing'' in the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     124)--
       (1) $367,000,000 is rescinded from the total amount under 
     such heading and from the amount specified under such heading 
     for the development or acquisition cost of public housing; 
     and
       (2) $230,701,000 of the amount specified under such heading 
     for the development or acquisition cost of public housing 
     shall be reallocated to and merged with the amount specified 
     under such heading for the housing voucher program under 
     section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

     SEC. 2552. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NASA.

       (a) Research and Development.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration--Research and Development'' in the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     124), $25,000,000 is rescinded.
       (b) Construction of Facilities.--Of the funds made 
     available under the heading ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration--Construction of Facilities'' in the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-124), $25,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2553. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NATIONAL SCIENCE 
                   FOUNDATION ACADEMIC RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Science Foundation--Academic Research Infrastructure'' in the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-124), $10,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC. 2555. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
                   GRANTS.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Community 
     Planning and Development--Community Development Grants'' in 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-124) for grants, $400,000,000 is rescinded.
             Subtitle L--Government-Wide and Other Programs

     SEC. 2601. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FEDERALLY SPONSORED 
                   UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Of the aggregate funds made available for 
     the accounts specified in subsection (b), $110,000,000 is 
     rescinded, to be derived from university research and 
     development programs. The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall allocate such rescission among 
     such accounts, and shall submit to the Congress a report 
     setting forth such allocation.
       (b) Affected Accounts.--The funds subject to the rescission 
     made by subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) National Institutes of Health.--The amounts made 
     available under the heading ``Department of Health and Human 
     Services--National Institutes of Health'' in the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-112), 
     for the following accounts:
       (A) ``National Cancer Institute''.
       (B) ``National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute''.
       (C) ``National Institute of Dental Research''.
       (D) ``National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and 
     Kidney Diseases''.
       (E) ``National Institute of Neurological Disorders and 
     Stroke''.
       (F) ``National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
     Diseases''.
       (G) ``National Institute of General Medical Sciences''.
       (H) ``National Institute of Child Health and Human 
     Development''.
       (I) ``National Eye Institute''.
       (J) ``National Institute of Environmental Health 
     Sciences''.
       (K) ``National Institute on Aging''.
       (L) ``National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal 
     and Skin Diseases''.
       (M) ``National Institute on Deafness and Other 
     Communication Disorders''.
       (N) ``National Institute of Nursing Research''.
       (O) ``National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism''.
       (P) ``National Institute on Drug Abuse''.
       (Q) ``National Institute of Mental Health''.
       (R) ``National Center for Research Resources''.
       (S) ``National Center for Human Genome Research''.
       (T) ``John E. Fogarty International Center''.
       (U) ``National Library of Medicine''.
       (V) ``Office of the Director''.
       (2) Independent Agencies.--The amounts made available in 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-124), for the following accounts:
       (A) ``National Science Foundation--Research and Related 
     Activities''.
       (B) ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
     Research and Development''.
       (3) Department of Defense.--The amounts made available in 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-139), for the following accounts:
       (A) ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army''.
       (B) ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy''.
       (C) ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
     Force''.
       (D) ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide''.

     SEC. 2602. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 
                   PRESIDENT.

       (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for each 
     account under the heading ``Executive Office of the President 
     and Funds Appropriated to the President'' in the Treasury, 
     Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-123), there is rescinded an amount equal to 
     5 percent of such funds.
       (b) Additional Offices.--Of the funds made available for 
     each account under the heading ``Executive Office of the 
     President'' in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-124), there is 
     rescinded an amount equal to 5 percent of such funds.

     SEC. 2603. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD.

       (a) In General.--Of the funds made available in 
     appropriations Acts for fiscal year 1994 to the following 
     agencies for travel and transportation of persons, 
     transportation of things, printing and reproduction, other 
     services, and supplies and materials, the following amounts 
     are rescinded:
       (1) Department of Agriculture, $299,570,000.
       (2) Department of Commerce, $32,960,000.
       (3) Department of Health and Human Services, $343,600,000.
       (4) Department of the Interior, $94,540,000.
       (5) Department of Justice, $133,790,000.
       (6) Department of Labor, $137,470,000.
       (7) Department of State, $43,220,000.
       (8) Department of the Treasury, $61,060,000.
       (9) Department of Education, $16,160,000.
       (10) Department of Energy, $137,160,000.
       (11) Environmental Protection Agency, $72,360,000.
       (12) Department of Transportation, $265,350,000.
       (13) Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     $18,970,000.
       (14) Department of Veterans Affairs, $143,780,000.
       (b) Allocation.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall allocate the rescissions made by subsection 
     (a) among the appropriate accounts, and shall submit to the 
     Congress a report setting forth such allocation.

     SEC. 2604. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR FEDERAL FULL-TIME 
                   EQUIVALENT POSITIONS.

       Of the aggregate funds made available to executive 
     departments and agencies in appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1994 for purposes of employee compensation, 
     $1,575,000,000 is rescinded. The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall allocate such rescission among 
     the appropriate accounts, except that no reduction shall be 
     made in Department of Defense accounts and shall submit to 
     the Congress a report setting forth such allocation.

     SEC. 2605. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR APPLICATION OF DAVIS-BACON 
                   ACT.

       Of the aggregate funds made available to executive 
     departments and agencies in appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1994 for purposes of construction activities under the 
     Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.) (known as the 
     ``Davis-Bacon Act'') or similar prevailing wage requirements 
     applicable to projects assisted by Federal funds, $62,000,000 
     is rescinded. The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall allocate such rescission among the appropriate 
     accounts, and shall submit to the Congress a report setting 
     forth such allocation.

     SEC. 2606. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR REPORTS ON CONTRACTS 
                   COVERED BY DAVIS-BACON ACT.

       Of the aggregate funds made available to executive 
     departments and agencies in appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1994 for purposes of construction activities submitted 
     under section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c) 
     (known as the ``Copeland Act''), $55,000,000 is rescinded. 
     The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     allocate such rescission among the appropriate accounts, and 
     shall submit to the Congress a report setting forth such 
     allocation.
                 Subtitle M--Coordination of Provisions

     SEC. 2651. INAPPLICABILITY OF EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act to the 
     contrary, there shall not take effect any proviso or other 
     provision in this Act that--
       (1) designates an amount as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to, or for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; or
       (2) restricts the availability of amounts to the extent 
     designated as such an emergency requirement by the President 
     in an official budget request or otherwise.
                   Subtitle N--Related Changes in Law

     SEC. 2701. REDUCTION IN PUBLIC LAW 480 FOOD FOR PEACE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 103 of title I of the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Modification of Terms and Conditions During Certain 
     Years.--The Secretary shall set the terms and conditions of 
     agreements entered into under this title after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection so that--
       ``(1) the length of the loan does not exceed 20 years;
       ``(2) the length of the grace period does not exceed 5 
     years;
       ``(3) the interest rate during the grace period is not less 
     than 3 percent; and
       ``(4) the interest rate during the payback period is not 
     less than 5 percent.''.

     SEC. 2702. ELIMINATION OF WEATHER OFFICE CLOSURE 
                   CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Title VII of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 is 
     repealed.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the repeal made by subsection (a) will not result in a 
     degradation of weather forecasting service.

     SEC. 2703. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE AIRWAY SCIENCE 
                   PROGRAM, COLLEGIATE TRAINING INITIATIVE, AND 
                   AIR CARRIER MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN TRAINING 
                   FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Airway Science Program.--All authority for--
       (1) the Secretary of Transportation to enter into grant 
     agreements with universities or colleges having an airway 
     science curriculum recognized by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for conducting demonstration projects with 
     respect to the development, advancement, and expansion of 
     airway science programs, and
       (2) the Federal Aviation Administration to enter into 
     competitive grant agreements with institutions of higher 
     education having airway science curricula,

     and all authorizations to appropriate funds for such 
     purposes, including all authorizations for which funds were 
     appropriated for such purposes under the heading ``Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Facilities and Equipment'' in the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Acts, 1994 are repealed.
       (b) Collegiate Training Initiative.--Section 362 of the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1560) is repealed. 
     Notwithstanding such repeal, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration may continue to convert appointment 
     of persons who have been appointed pursuant to such section 
     prior to the effective date of this Act from the excepted 
     service to a career conditional or career appointment in the 
     competitive civil service, pursuant to subsection (c) of such 
     section.
       (c) Air Carrier Maintenance Technician Training Facility 
     Grant Program.--Section 119 of the Airport and Airway Safety, 
     Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation 
     Act of 1992 (49 U.S.C. App. 1354 note; 106 Stat. 4883-4884) 
     is repealed.

     SEC. 2704. ELIMINATION OF FUNDING FOR PUBLIC 
                   TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.

       Subpart A of Part IV of title III of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 390-393a) is repealed.

     SEC. 2705. TERMINATION STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE.

       The State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et 
     seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 2706. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT 
                   POSITIONS.

       (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``agency'' means an Executive agency as defined under section 
     105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include the 
     General Accounting Office.
       (b) Limitations on Full-Time Equivalent Positions.--The 
     President, through the Office of Management and Budget (in 
     consultation with the Office of Personnel Management), shall 
     ensure that the total number of full-time equivalent 
     positions in all agencies shall not exceed--
       (1) 2,053,600 during fiscal year 1994;
       (2) 1,999,600 during fiscal year 1995;
       (3) 1,945,600 during fiscal year 1996;
       (4) 1,895,600 during fiscal year 1997; and
       (5) 1,851,600 during fiscal year 1998.
       (c) Monitoring and Notification.--The Office of Management 
     and Budget, after consultation with the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall--
       (1) continuously monitor all agencies and make a 
     determination on the first date of each quarter of each 
     applicable fiscal year of whether the requirements under 
     subsection (b) are met; and
       (2) notify the President and the Congress on the first date 
     of each quarter of each applicable fiscal year of any 
     determination that any requirement of subsection (b) is not 
     met.
       (d) Compliance.--If at any time during a fiscal year, the 
     Office of Management and Budget notifies the President and 
     the Congress that any requirement under subsection (b) is not 
     met, no agency may hire any employee for any position in such 
     agency until the Office of Management and Budget notifies the 
     President and the Congress that the total number of full-time 
     equivalent positions for all agencies equals or is less than 
     the applicable number required under subsection (b).
       (e) Waiver.--Any provision of this section may be waived 
     upon--
       (1) a determination by the President of the existence of 
     war or a national security requirement; or
       (2) the enactment of a joint resolution upon an affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of each House of the 
     Congress duly chosen and sworn.

     SEC. 2707. INCREASE IN THRESHOLD FOR APPLICATION OF DAVIS-
                   BACON ACT.

       Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.) (known as the ``Davis-Bacon 
     Act'') is amended by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting 
     ``$100,000''.

     SEC. 2708. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN REPORTS REQUIRED ON 
                   CONTRACTS COVERED BY DAVIS-BACON ACT.

       The first sentence of section 2 of the Act of June 13, 
     1934, entitled ``An Act to effectuate the purpose of certain 
     statutes concerning rates of pay for labor, by making it 
     unlawful to prevent anyone from receiving the compensation 
     contracted for thereunder, and for other purposes'' (40 
     U.S.C. 276c) (known as the ``Copeland Act'') is amended by 
     striking ``shall furnish weekly a statement with respect to 
     the wages paid each employee during the preceding week'' and 
     inserting ``shall furnish, at least once per month, a 
     statement of compliance with the labor standards provisions 
     of applicable law, certifying the payroll with respect to the 
     wages paid employees during the preceding period for which 
     the statement is furnished, covering each week any contract 
     work is performed''.

     SEC. 2709. SUBSTITUTION OF VOUCHER ASSISTANCE FOR PUBLIC 
                   HOUSING NEW CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Termination of Assistance for Construction of Public 
     Housing.--
       (1) Loan authority.--After the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may 
     not enter into any new commitment to make loans under section 
     4 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to public housing 
     agencies for the development or acquisition of public housing 
     projects by such agencies.
       (2) Contribution authority.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may not enter into any new contract to make 
     contributions under section 5 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 to public housing agencies for the development or 
     acquisition of public housing projects by such agencies.
       (3) Existing commitments.--After the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     may make contributions and loans for the development or 
     acquisition of public housing projects only pursuant to 
     legally binding commitments to make such loans or contracts 
     for such contributions entered into on or before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Inapplicability to indian housing.--The provisions of 
     this section shall not apply to public housing developed 
     pursuant to a contract between the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development and an Indian housing authority.
       (5) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``Indian housing authority'', ``project'', ``public 
     housing'', and ``public housing agency'' have the meanings 
     given the terms in section 3(b) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937.
       (b) Permissible Uses.--Vouchers for rental assistance 
     provided with the amounts made available under this section 
     may be used for the rental of dwelling units or costs of 
     residency, as determined by qualified voucher recipients.

     SEC. 2710. REFORM OF HUD MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY DISPOSITION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the portfolio of multifamily housing project mortgages 
     insured by the FHA is severely troubled and at risk of 
     default, requiring the Secretary to increase loss reserves 
     from $5,500,000,000 in 1991 to $11,900,000,000 in 1992 to 
     cover estimated future losses;
       (2) the inventory of multifamily housing projects owned by 
     the Secretary has more than tripled since 1989, and, by the 
     end of 1993, may exceed 75,000 units;
       (3) the cost to the Federal Government of owning and 
     maintaining multifamily housing projects escalated to 
     approximately $250,000,000 in fiscal year 1992;
       (4) the inventory of multifamily housing projects subject 
     to mortgages held by the Secretary has increased 
     dramatically, to more than 2,400 mortgages, and approximately 
     half of these mortgages, with over 230,000 units, are 
     delinquent;
       (5) the inventory of insured and formerly insured 
     multifamily housing projects is rapidly deteriorating, 
     endangering tenants and neighborhoods;
       (6) over 5 million families today have a critical need for 
     housing that is affordable and habitable; and
       (7) the current statutory framework governing the 
     disposition of multifamily housing projects effectively 
     impedes the Government's ability to dispose of properties, 
     protect tenants, and ensure that projects are maintained over 
     time.
       (b) Management and Disposition of Multifamily Housing 
     Projects.--Section 203 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Amendments of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-11) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 203. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING 
                   PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Goals.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development (in this section referred to as the `Secretary') 
     shall manage or dispose of multifamily housing projects that 
     are owned by the Secretary or that are subject to a mortgage 
     held by the Secretary in a manner that--
       ``(1) is consistent with the National Housing Act and this 
     section;
       ``(2) will protect the financial interests of the Federal 
     Government; and
       ``(3) will, in the least costly fashion among reasonable 
     available alternatives, further the goals of--
       ``(A) preserving housing so that it can remain available to 
     and affordable by low-income persons;
       ``(B) preserving and revitalizing residential 
     neighborhoods;
       ``(C) maintaining existing housing stock in a decent, safe, 
     and sanitary condition;
       ``(D) minimizing the involuntary displacement of tenants;
       ``(E) maintaining housing for the purpose of providing 
     rental housing, cooperative housing, and homeownership 
     opportunities for low-income persons; and
       ``(F) minimizing the need to demolish multifamily housing 
     projects.

     The Secretary, in determining the manner in which a project 
     is to be managed or disposed of, may balance competing goals 
     relating to individual projects in a manner that will further 
     the purposes of this section.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Multifamily housing project.--The term `multifamily 
     housing project' means any multifamily rental housing project 
     which is, or prior to acquisition by the Secretary was, 
     assisted or insured under the National Housing Act, or was 
     subject to a loan under section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959.
       ``(2) Subsidized project.--The term `subsidized project' 
     means a multifamily housing project receiving any of the 
     following types of assistance immediately prior to the 
     assignment of the mortgage on such project to, or the 
     acquisition of such mortgage by, the Secretary:
       ``(A) Below market interest rate mortgage insurance under 
     the proviso of section 221(d)(5) of the National Housing Act.
       ``(B) Interest reduction payments made in connection with 
     mortgages insured under section 236 of the National Housing 
     Act.
       ``(C) Direct loans made under section 202 of the Housing 
     Act of 1959.
       ``(D) Assistance in the form of--
       ``(i) rent supplement payments under section 101 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;
       ``(ii) housing assistance payments made under section 23 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before 
     January 1, 1975); or
       ``(iii) housing assistance payments made under section 8 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (excluding payments 
     made for tenant-based assistance under section 8),

     if (except for purposes of section 183(c) of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1987) such assistance payments 
     are made to more than 50 percent of the units in the project.
       ``(3) Formerly subsidized project.--The term `formerly 
     subsidized project' means a multifamily housing project owned 
     by the Secretary that was a subsidized project immediately 
     prior to its acquisition by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Unsubsidized project.--The term `unsubsidized 
     project' means a multifamily housing project owned by the 
     Secretary that is not a subsidized project or a formerly 
     subsidized project.
       ``(c) Management or Disposition of Property.--
       ``(1) Disposition to purchasers.--The Secretary is 
     authorized, in carrying out this section, to dispose of a 
     multifamily housing project owned by the Secretary on a 
     negotiated, competitive bid, or other basis, on such terms as 
     the Secretary deems appropriate considering the low-income 
     character of the project and the requirements of subsection 
     (a), to a purchaser determined by the Secretary to be capable 
     of--
       ``(A) satisfying the conditions of the disposition;
       ``(B) implementing a sound financial and physical 
     management program that is designed to enable the project to 
     meet anticipated operating and repair expenses to ensure that 
     the project will remain in decent, safe, and sanitary 
     condition;
       ``(C) responding to the needs of the tenants and working 
     cooperatively with tenant organizations;
       ``(D) providing adequate organizational staff and financial 
     resources to the project; and
       ``(E) meeting such other requirements as the Secretary may 
     determine.
       ``(2) Contracting for management services.--The Secretary 
     is authorized, in carrying out this section--
       ``(A) to contract for management services for a multifamily 
     housing project that is owned by the Secretary (or for which 
     the Secretary is mortgagee in possession), on a negotiated, 
     competitive bid, or other basis at a price determined by the 
     Secretary to be reasonable, with a manager the Secretary has 
     determined is capable of--
       ``(i) implementing a sound financial and physical 
     management program that is designed to enable the project to 
     meet anticipated operating and maintenance expenses to ensure 
     that the project will remain in decent, safe, and sanitary 
     condition;
       ``(ii) responding to the needs of the tenants and working 
     cooperatively with tenant organizations;
       ``(iii) providing adequate organizational, staff, and other 
     resources to implement a management program determined by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(iv) meeting such other requirements as the Secretary may 
     determine; and
       ``(B) to require the owner of a multifamily housing project 
     that is subject to a mortgage held by the Secretary to 
     contract for management services for the project in the 
     manner described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(d) Maintenance of Housing Projects.--
       ``(1) Housing projects owned by the secretary.--In the case 
     of multifamily housing projects that are owned by the 
     Secretary (or for which the Secretary is mortgagee in 
     possession), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) to the greatest extent possible, maintain all such 
     occupied projects in a decent, safe, and sanitary condition;
       ``(B) to the greatest extent possible, maintain full 
     occupancy in all such projects; and
       ``(C) maintain all such projects for purposes of providing 
     rental or cooperative housing.
       ``(2) Housing projects subject to a mortgage held by the 
     secretary.--In the case of any multifamily housing project 
     that is subject to a mortgage held by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall require the owner of the project to carry out 
     the requirements of paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Required Assistance.--In carrying out the goal 
     specified in subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary shall take 
     not less than one of the following actions:
       ``(1) Contract with owner.--Enter into contracts under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, to the 
     extent budget authority is available, with owners of 
     multifamily housing projects that are acquired by a purchaser 
     other than the Secretary at foreclosure or after sale by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(A) Subsidized or formerly subsidized projects receiving 
     certain assistance.--In the case of a subsidized or formerly 
     subsidized project referred to in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (C) of subsection (b)(2)--
       ``(i) the contract shall be sufficient to assist at least 
     all units covered by an assistance contract under any of the 
     authorities referred to in subsection (b)(2)(D) before 
     acquisition, unless the Secretary acts pursuant to the 
     provisions of subparagraph (C);
       ``(ii) in the case of units requiring project-based rental 
     assistance pursuant to this paragraph that are occupied by 
     families who are not eligible for assistance under section 8, 
     a contract under this subparagraph shall also provide that 
     when a vacancy occurs, the owner shall lease the available 
     unit to a family eligible for assistance under section 8; and
       ``(iii) the Secretary shall take actions to ensure the 
     availability and affordability, as defined in paragraph 
     (3)(B), for the remaining useful life of the project, as 
     defined by the Secretary, of any unit located in any project 
     referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection 
     (b)(2) that does not otherwise receive project-based 
     assistance under this subparagraph. To carry out this clause, 
     the Secretary may require purchasers to establish use or rent 
     restrictions maintaining affordability, as defined in 
     paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(B) Subsidized or formerly subsidized projects receiving 
     other assistance.--In the case of a subsidized or formerly 
     subsidized project referred to in subsection (b)(2)(D)--
       ``(i) the contract shall be sufficient to assist at least 
     all units in the project that are covered, or were covered 
     immediately before foreclosure on or acquisition of the 
     project by the Secretary, by an assistance contract under any 
     of the authorities referred to in such subsection, unless the 
     Secretary acts pursuant to provisions of subparagraph (C); 
     and
       ``(ii) in the case of units requiring project-based rental 
     assistance pursuant to this paragraph that are occupied by 
     families who are not eligible for assistance under section 8, 
     a contract under this paragraph shall also provide that when 
     a vacancy occurs, the owner shall lease the available unit to 
     a family eligible for assistance under section 8.
       ``(C) Exceptions to subparagraphs (a) and (b).--In lieu of 
     providing project-based assistance under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B), the Secretary may require certain units in unsubsidized 
     projects to contain use restrictions providing that such 
     units will be available to and affordable by very low-income 
     families for the remaining useful life of the project, as 
     defined by the Secretary, if--
       ``(i) the Secretary matches any reduction in units 
     otherwise required to be assisted with project-based 
     assistance under subparagraph (A) or (B) with at least an 
     equivalent increase in units made affordable to very low-
     income persons within unsubsidized projects;
       ``(ii) low-income tenants residing in units otherwise 
     requiring project-based assistance under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) upon disposition receive section 8 tenant-based 
     assistance; and
       ``(iii) the units described in clause (i) are located 
     within the same market area.
       ``(D) Contract requirements for unsubsidized projects.--
     Notwithstanding actions taken pursuant to subparagraph (C), 
     in unsubsidized projects, the contract shall at least be 
     sufficient to provide--
       ``(i) project-based rental assistance for all units that 
     are covered or were covered immediately before foreclosure or 
     acquisition by an assistance contract under--

       ``(I) section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (as such section existed before October 1, 1983) (new 
     construction and substantial rehabilitation); section 8(b) of 
     such Act (property disposition); section 8(d)(2) of such Act 
     (project-based certificates); section 8(e)(2) of such Act 
     (moderate rehabilitation); section 23 of such Act (as in 
     effect before January 1, 1975); or section 101 of the Housing 
     and Urban Development Act of 1965 (rent supplements); or
       ``(II) section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
     following conversion from section 101 of the Housing and 
     Urban Development Act of 1965; and

       ``(ii) tenant-based assistance under section 8 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 for tenants currently 
     residing in units that were covered by an assistance contract 
     under the Loan Management Set-Aside program under section 
     8(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 immediately 
     before foreclosure or acquisition of the project by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Annual contribution contracts.--In the case of 
     multifamily housing projects that are acquired by a purchaser 
     other than the Secretary at foreclosure or after sale by the 
     Secretary, enter into annual contribution contracts with 
     public housing agencies to provide tenant-based assistance 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to 
     all low-income families who are eligible for such assistance 
     on the date that the project is acquired by the purchaser. 
     The Secretary shall take action under this paragraph only 
     after making a determination that there is available in the 
     area an adequate supply of habitable affordable housing for 
     low-income families. Actions taken pursuant to this paragraph 
     may be taken in connection with not more than 10 percent of 
     the aggregate number of units in subsidized or formerly 
     subsidized projects disposed of by the Secretary annually.
       ``(3) Other assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--In accordance with the authority 
     provided under the National Housing Act, reduce the selling 
     price, apply use or rent restrictions on certain units, or 
     provide other financial assistance to the owners of 
     multifamily housing projects that are acquired by a purchaser 
     other than the Secretary at foreclosure, or after sale by the 
     Secretary, on terms which will ensure that--
       ``(i) at least those units otherwise required to receive 
     project-based section 8 assistance pursuant to subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), or (D) of paragraph (1) are available to and 
     affordable by low-income persons; and
       ``(ii) for the remaining useful life of the project, as 
     defined by the Secretary, there shall be in force such use or 
     rent restrictions as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(B) Definition.--A unit shall be considered affordable 
     under this paragraph if--
       ``(i) for very low-income tenants, the rent for such unit 
     does not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of the area median 
     income, as determined by the Secretary, with adjustments for 
     family size; and
       ``(ii) for low-income tenants other than very low-income 
     tenants, the rent for such unit does not exceed 30 percent of 
     80 percent of the area median income, as determined by the 
     Secretary, with adjustments for family size.
       ``(C) Very low-income tenants.--The Secretary shall provide 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 to any very low-income tenant currently residing in a 
     unit otherwise required to receive project-based assistance 
     under section 8, pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of 
     paragraph (1), if the rents charged such tenants as a result 
     of actions taken pursuant to this paragraph exceed the amount 
     payable as rent under section 3(a) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937.
       ``(4) Transfer for use under other programs of the 
     secretary.--
       ``(A) In general.--Enter into an agreement providing for 
     the transfer of a multifamily housing project--
       ``(i) to a public housing agency for use of the project as 
     public housing; or
       ``(ii) to an owner or another appropriate entity for use of 
     the project under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 or 
     under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act.
       ``(B) Requirements for agreement.--The agreement described 
     in subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) contain such terms, conditions, and limitations as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate, including requirements 
     to assure use of the project under the public housing, 
     section 202, and section 811 programs; and
       ``(ii) ensure that no current tenant will be displaced as a 
     result of actions taken under this paragraph.
       ``(f) Other Assistance.--In addition to the actions 
     authorized by subsection (e), the Secretary may take any of 
     the following actions:
       ``(1) Short-term loans.--Provide short-term loans to 
     facilitate the sale of multifamily housing projects to 
     nonprofit organizations or to public agencies if--
       ``(A) authority for such loans is provided in advance in an 
     appropriations Act;
       ``(B) such loans are for a term of not more than 5 years;
       ``(C) the Secretary is presented with satisfactory 
     documentation, evidencing a commitment of permanent financing 
     to replace such short-term loan, from a lender who meets 
     standards set forth by the Secretary; and
       ``(D) the terms of such loans are consistent with 
     prevailing practices in the marketplace or the provision of 
     such loans results in no cost to the Government, as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act.
       ``(2) Tenant-based assistance.--In connection with projects 
     referred to in subsection (e), make available tenant-based 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 to very low-income families (as defined in section 
     3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937) that do not 
     otherwise qualify for project-based assistance.
       ``(3) Alternative uses.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and subject to notice to and comment from existing 
     tenants, allow not more than--
       ``(i) 5 percent of the total number of units in multifamily 
     housing projects that are disposed of by the Secretary during 
     any 1-year period to be made available for uses other than 
     rental or cooperative uses, including low-income 
     homeownership opportunities, or in any particular project, 
     community space, office space for tenant or housing-related 
     service providers or security programs, or small business 
     uses, if such uses benefit the tenants of the project; and
       ``(ii) 5 percent of the total number of units in 
     multifamily housing projects that are disposed of by the 
     Secretary during any 1-year period to be used in any manner, 
     if the Secretary and the unit of general local government or 
     area-wide governing body determine that such use will further 
     fair housing, community development, or neighborhood 
     revitalization goals.
       ``(B) Displacement protection.--The Secretary shall make 
     available tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 to any tenant displaced 
     as a result of actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), and the Secretary shall take such actions 
     as the Secretary determines necessary to ensure the 
     successful use of any tenant-based assistance.
       ``(g) Authorization of Use or Rent Restrictions in 
     Unsubsidized Projects.--In carrying out the goals specified 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary may require certain units in 
     unsubsidized projects to contain use or rent restrictions 
     providing that such units will be available to and affordable 
     by very low-income persons for the remaining useful life of 
     the property, as defined by the Secretary.
       ``(h) Contract Requirements.--
       ``(1) Contract term.--
       ``(A) In general.--Contracts for project-based rental 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 provided pursuant to this section shall be for a term 
     of not more than 15 years; and
       ``(B) Contract term of less than 15 years.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), to the extent that units receive project-
     based assistance for a contract term of less than 15 years, 
     the Secretary shall require that rents charged to tenants for 
     such units not exceed the amount payable for rent under 
     section 3(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for a 
     period of at least 15 years.
       ``(2) Contract rent.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall set contract rents 
     for section 8 project-based rental contracts issued under 
     this section at levels that, in conjunction with other 
     resources available to the purchaser, provide for the 
     necessary costs of rehabilitation of such project and do not 
     exceed the percentage of the existing housing fair market 
     rents for the area (as determined by the Secretary under 
     section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937) as the 
     Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(B) Up-front grants and loans.--If such an approach is 
     determined to be more cost-effective, the Secretary may 
     utilize the budget authority provided for project-based 
     section 8 contracts issued under this section to--
       ``(i) provide project-based section 8 rental assistance; 
     and
       ``(ii)(I) provide up-front grants for the necessary cost of 
     rehabilitation; or
       ``(II) pay for any cost to the Government, as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act, for loans made 
     pursuant to subsection (f)(1).
       ``(i) Disposition Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Prior to the sale of a multifamily 
     housing project that is owned by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     shall develop a disposition plan for the project that 
     specifies the minimum terms and conditions of the Secretary 
     for disposition of the project, the initial sales price that 
     is acceptable to the Secretary, and the assistance that the 
     Secretary plans to make available to a prospective purchaser 
     in accordance with this section. The initial sales price 
     shall reflect the intended use of the property after sale.
       ``(2) Community and tenant input into disposition plans and 
     sales.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall develop procedures to obtain appropriate and 
     timely input into disposition plans from officials of the 
     unit of general local government affected, the community in 
     which the project is situated, and the tenants of the 
     project.
       ``(B) Tenant organizations.--The Secretary shall develop 
     procedures to facilitate, where feasible and appropriate, the 
     sale of multifamily housing projects to existing tenant 
     organizations with demonstrated capacity or to public or 
     nonprofit entities which represent or are affiliated with 
     existing tenant organizations.
       ``(C) Technical assistance.--
       ``(i) Use of funds.--To carry out the procedures developed 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary is authorized 
     to provide technical assistance, directly or indirectly, and 
     to use amounts appropriated for technical assistance under 
     the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, 
     the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident 
     Homeownership Act of 1990, subtitle B of title IV of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, or under 
     this section for the provision of technical assistance under 
     this section.
       ``(ii) Source of funds.--Recipients of technical assistance 
     funding under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation 
     Act of 1987, the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident 
     Homeownership Act of 1990, subtitle B of title IV of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, or under 
     this section shall be permitted to provide technical 
     assistance to the extent of such funding under any of such 
     programs or under this section, notwithstanding the source of 
     funding.
       ``(j) Right of First Refusal.--
       ``(1) Procedure.--
       ``(A) Notification by secretary of the acquisition of 
     title.--Not later than 30 days after acquiring title to a 
     project, the Secretary shall notify the unit of general local 
     government and the State agency or agencies designated by the 
     Governor of the acquisition of such title.
       ``(B) Expression of interest.--Not later than 45 days after 
     receiving notification from the Secretary under subparagraph 
     (A), the unit of general local government or designated State 
     agency may submit to the Secretary a preliminary expression 
     of interest in the project. The Secretary may take such 
     actions as may be necessary to require the unit of general 
     local government or designated State agency to substantiate 
     such interest.
       ``(C) Timely expression of interest.--If the unit of 
     general local government or designated State agency has 
     expressed interest in the project before the expiration of 
     the 45-day period referred to in subparagraph (B), and has 
     substantiated such interest if requested, the Secretary, upon 
     approval of a disposition plan for a project, shall notify 
     the unit of general local government and designated State 
     agency of the terms and conditions of the disposition plan 
     and give the unit of general local government or designated 
     State agency not more than 90 days after the date of such 
     notification to make an offer to purchase the project.
       ``(D) No timely expression of interest.--If the unit of 
     general local government or designated State agency does not 
     express interest before the expiration of the 45-day period 
     referred to in subparagraph (B), or does not substantiate an 
     expressed interest if requested, the Secretary, upon approval 
     of a disposition plan, may offer the project for sale to any 
     interested person or entity.
       ``(2) Acceptance of offers.--Where the Secretary has given 
     the unit of general local government or designated State 
     agency 90 days to make an offer to purchase the project, the 
     Secretary shall accept an offer that complies with the terms 
     and conditions of the disposition plan. The Secretary may 
     accept an offer that does not comply with the terms and 
     conditions of the disposition plan if the Secretary 
     determines that the offer will further the goals specified in 
     subsection (a) by actions that include extension of the 
     duration of low-income affordability restrictions or 
     otherwise restructuring the transaction in a manner that 
     enhances the long-term affordability for low-income persons. 
     The Secretary shall, in particular, have discretion to reduce 
     the initial sales price in exchange for the extension of low-
     income affordability restrictions beyond the period of 
     assistance contemplated by the attachment of assistance 
     pursuant to subsection (e). If the Secretary and the unit of 
     general local government or designated State agency cannot 
     reach agreement within 90 days, the Secretary may offer the 
     project for sale to the general public.
       ``(3) Purchase by unit of general local government or 
     designated state agency.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a unit of general local government (including a 
     public housing agency) or designated State agency may 
     purchase a subsidized or formerly subsidized project in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(4) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to 
     projects that are acquired on or after the effective date of 
     this subsection. With respect to projects acquired before 
     such effective date, the Secretary may apply--
       ``(A) the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 
     203(e) as such paragraphs existed immediately before the 
     effective date of this subsection; or
       ``(B) the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
     subsection, if the Secretary gives the unit of general local 
     government or designated State agency--
       ``(i) 45 days to express interest in the project; and
       ``(ii) if the unit of general local government or 
     designated State agency expresses interest in the project 
     before the expiration of the 45-day period, and substantiates 
     such interest if requested, 90 days from the date of 
     notification of the terms and conditions of the disposition 
     plan to make an offer to purchase the project.
       ``(k) Displacement of Tenants and Relocation Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whenever tenants will be displaced as a 
     result of the disposition of, or repairs to, a multifamily 
     housing project that is owned by the Secretary (or for which 
     the Secretary is mortgagee in possession), the Secretary 
     shall identify tenants who will be displaced, and shall 
     notify all such tenants of their pending displacement and of 
     any relocation assistance which may be available. In the case 
     of a multifamily housing project that is not owned by the 
     Secretary (and for which the Secretary is not mortgagee in 
     possession), the Secretary shall require the owner of the 
     project to carry out the requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(2) Rights of displaced tenants.--The Secretary shall 
     assure for any such tenant (who continues to meet applicable 
     qualification standards) the right--
       ``(A) to return, whenever possible, to a repaired unit;
       ``(B) to occupy a unit in another multifamily housing 
     project owned by the Secretary;
       ``(C) to obtain housing assistance under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937; or
       ``(D) to receive any other available relocation assistance 
     as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(l) Mortgage and Project Sales.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not approve the sale 
     of any loan or mortgage held by the Secretary (including any 
     loan or mortgage owned by the Government National Mortgage 
     Association) on any subsidized project or formerly subsidized 
     project, unless such sale is made as part of a transaction 
     that will ensure that such project will continue to operate 
     at least until the maturity date of such loan or mortgage, in 
     a manner that will provide rental housing on terms at least 
     as advantageous to existing and future tenants as the terms 
     required by the program under which the loan or mortgage was 
     made or insured prior to the assignment of the loan or 
     mortgage on such project to the Secretary.
       ``(2) Sale of certain projects.--The Secretary may not 
     approve the sale of any subsidized project--
       ``(A) that is subject to a mortgage held by the Secretary; 
     or
       ``(B) if the sale transaction involves the provision of any 
     additional subsidy funds by the Secretary or a recasting of 
     the mortgage, unless such sale is made as part of a 
     transaction that will ensure that such project will continue 
     to operate at least until the maturity date of the loan or 
     mortgage, in a manner that will provide rental housing on 
     terms at least as advantageous to existing and future tenants 
     as the terms required by the program under which the loan or 
     mortgage was made or insured prior to the proposed sale of 
     the project.
       ``(3) Mortgage sales to state and local governments.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of law that may require 
     competitive sales or bidding, the Secretary may carry out 
     negotiated sales of subsidized or formerly subsidized 
     mortgages held by the Secretary, without the competitive 
     selection of purchasers or intermediaries, to units of 
     general local government or State agencies, or groups of 
     investors that include at least one such unit of general 
     local government or State agency, if the negotiations are 
     conducted with such agencies, except that--
       ``(A) the terms of any such sale shall include the 
     agreement of the purchasing agency or unit of local 
     government or State agency to act as mortgagee or owner of a 
     beneficial interest in such mortgages, in a manner consistent 
     with maintaining the projects that are subject to such 
     mortgages for occupancy by the general tenant group intended 
     to be served by the applicable mortgage insurance program, 
     including, to the extent the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, authorizing such unit of local government or 
     State agency to enforce the provisions of any regulatory 
     agreement or other program requirements applicable to the 
     related projects; and
       ``(B) the sales prices for such mortgages shall be, in the 
     determination of the Secretary, the best prices that may be 
     obtained for such mortgages from a unit of general local 
     government or State agency, consistent with the expectation 
     and intention that the projects financed will be retained for 
     use under the applicable mortgage insurance program for the 
     life of the initial mortgage insurance contract.
       ``(4) Sale of mortgages covering unsubsidized projects.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may 
     sell mortgages held on unsubsidized projects on such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(m) Report to Congress.--Not later than June 1 of each 
     year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives, a report describing the status of 
     multifamily housing projects owned by or subject to mortgages 
     held by the Secretary, which report shall include--
       ``(1) the name, address, and size of each project;
       ``(2) the nature and date of assignment;
       ``(3) the status of the mortgage;
       ``(4) the physical condition of the project;
       ``(5) an occupancy profile of the project, including the 
     income, family size, and race of current residents as well as 
     the rents paid by such residents;
       ``(6) the proportion of units in a project that are vacant;
       ``(7) the date on which the Secretary became mortgagee in 
     possession;
       ``(8) the date and conditions of any foreclosure sale;
       ``(9) the date of acquisition by the Secretary;
       ``(10) the date and conditions of any property disposition 
     sale;
       ``(11) a description of actions undertaken pursuant to this 
     section, including--
       ``(A) a comparison of results between actions taken after 
     enactment of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1993 and actions taken in years prior to such enactment;
       ``(B) a description of any impediments to the disposition 
     or management of multifamily housing projects, together with 
     a recommendation of proposed legislative or regulatory 
     changes designed to ameliorate such impediments;
       ``(C) a description of actions taken to restructure or 
     commence foreclosure on delinquent multifamily mortgages held 
     by the Department; and
       ``(D) a description of actions taken to monitor and prevent 
     the default of multifamily housing mortgages held by the 
     Federal Housing Administration;
       ``(12) a description of any of the functions performed in 
     connection with this section that are contracted out to 
     public or private entities or to States, including--
       ``(A) the costs associated with such delegation;
       ``(B) the implications of contracting out or delegating 
     such functions for current Department field or regional 
     personnel, including anticipated personnel or work load 
     reductions;
       ``(C) necessary oversight required by Department personnel, 
     including anticipated personnel hours devoted to such 
     oversight;
       ``(D) a description of any authority granted to such public 
     or private entities or States in conjunction with the 
     functions that have been delegated or contracted out or that 
     are not otherwise available for use by Department personnel; 
     and
       ``(E) the extent to which such public or private entities 
     or States include tenants of multifamily housing projects in 
     the disposition planning for such projects;
       ``(13) a description of the activities carried out under 
     subsection (j) during the preceding year; and
       ``(14) a description and assessment of the rules, 
     guidelines, and practices governing the Department's 
     management of multifamily housing projects that are owned by 
     the Secretary (or for which the Secretary is mortgagee in 
     possession) as well as the steps that the Secretary has taken 
     or plans to take to improve the management performance of the 
     Department.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall, by notice 
     published in the Federal Register, which shall take effect 
     upon publication, establish such requirements as may be 
     necessary to implement the amendments made by this section. 
     The notice shall invite public comments, and the Secretary 
     shall issue final regulations based on the initial notice, 
     taking into account any public comments received.

     SEC. 2711. ELIMINATION OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT HAVE 
                   LARGELY ACHIEVED THEIR PURPOSE.

       (a) Public Library Construction.--
       (1) Repeal.--Title II of the Library Services and 
     Construction Act (20 U.S.C. 355a et seq.) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 4(a)(2) of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 351b(a)(2)) is repealed.
       (b) Follow Through Program.--The Follow Through Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9861 et seq.) is repealed.
       (c) Law-Related Education.--Section 1565 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2965) is 
     repealed.
       (d) Law School Clinical Experience Program.--Part G of 
     title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1132u 
     et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 2712. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REORGANIZATION.

       (a) Closure and Consolidation of Offices.--During the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending on September 30, 1998, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall close or consolidate not less than 1,200 field offices 
     of the agencies of the Department of Agriculture described in 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Purpose of Closure and Consolidation.--In addition to 
     reducing expenditures of the Department of Agriculture, the 
     closure and consolidation of field offices pursuant to this 
     section is intended to improve services provided to 
     agricultural producers in the United States through the 
     greater use of multipurpose field offices combining the 
     services of more than one of the agencies described in 
     subsection (d).
       (c) Corresponding Reductions and Reorganization.--As part 
     of the closure and consolidation of field offices under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) eliminate not less than 7,500 full-time employment 
     positions in the Department of Agriculture; and
       (2) reorganize the headquarters corresponding to the 
     agencies described in subsection (d).
       (d) Field Offices Described.--The field offices to be 
     closed and consolidated under this section shall be selected 
     from among the field offices of the Agricultural 
     Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Soil Conservation 
     Service, the Farmers Home Administration, and the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Corporation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Nussle] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Nussle].
  Mr. NUSSLE. First, Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
half of my time, 15 minutes, be given to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Penny], to be controlled by him.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, first I would like to thank my staff, and I would 
like to thank Bill Warfield, from the staff of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and the Budget staff. Madam Chairman, it is very 
difficult to put together amendments like this with all the specifics 
we have tried to incorporate in this bill. It takes a lot of good 
people to put that together, and I want to thank them for their efforts 
in that regard.
  Madam Chairman, I also would like to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for their help in a bipartisan 
fashion to try to come up with some ideas about consideration of 
spending cuts.
  Madam Chairman, the issue today is consideration of how to pay for 
the emergency. There is not anyone in this building who would disagree 
with the fact that we have an emergency, that we have a situation in 
this country where victims need our help. I believe that, everybody in 
this Chamber believes that, I believe. But we have come together in a 
bipartisan fashion to do one thing, to try to find a way to pay for 
this now as opposed to putting this onto the backs of our kids and 
grandkids.
  Now, I listened with quite a lot of interest during the Myers of 
Indiana amendment and listened to the wild charges, ``You are taking 
bread from children,'' ``Mothers will be out on the street,'' and, 
``Employees will be thrown out on the welfare lines.'' What ridiculous 
charges you are coming up with.
  Now, you can try, but there is not a person in this Chamber or 
listening to this debate who believes, who believes any of these wild 
charges about cutting a little bit out of our humongous Federal budget.
  Just a little bit, to set a priority, to make a statement, to say we 
believe this emergency is more important than a few other lower 
priority items in the budget, which is all we are saying.
  We are saying that Jim Nussle should not be able to send to his 
children, Sarah and Mark, the bill that I incur today. That Bill 
Clinton, President of the United States, should not be allowed to send 
to Chelsea Clinton, the bill he incurs today on our behalf.
  There is not anyone here that does not agree with us we have an 
emergency, the flood victims in the Midwest, the earthquake victims in 
Los Angeles. All we are suggesting is we set a priority. This is our 
priority.
  All of the cuts considered under the Nussle-Kasich-Condit-Penny 
amendment, have been voted on before. All of these cuts you have voted 
on. You are on record. We know where you are. And the organizations 
such as National Taxpayers, Citizens Against Government Waste, and many 
others, suggest that you also support this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I want to reemphasize this point. There are no hidden 
bombs inside this language. These are all cuts that are quite 
innocuous. It is a big bill. But so is the emergency. And should we not 
come up with the money? We have tried to do just that.
  The National Taxpayers Union, the Concord Association, Citizens for a 
Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Committee for a 
Sound Federal Budget, have all endorsed the Nussle budget, for this 
reason: It is time to start the process we know we are going to have to 
go through. Instead of putting this on our kids and grandkids to come 
up with the cuts, do it today. It is very simple.
  I wanted to reemphasize one other point, and that is it is our debt 
that matters in this instance. We are adding to the debt when we pay 
for these things off budget. And I can tell you that in 1 year, the 
price per person in this country of that national debt, listen to these 
figures, on February 3, 1993, the amount of debt per person in this 
country, if you divide the national debt by each man, woman and child, 
not even taxpayers, was $16,091. It has now grown until today, 1 year 
later, to $17,080. One thousand dollars you have added to the backs of 
my kids, your kids, and your grandkids, because we can't answer a 
simple question: How must does it cost, and how are we going to pay for 
it?
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment 
would rescind over $9 billion. This amendment has much more serious 
impacts than the one offered by Mr. Penny and Mr. Kasich that we 
already defeated in the House when we considered H.R. 3400 only last 
November.
  This amendment, like the one we just considered, makes double count 
reductions on personnel funding and other across-the-board type cuts 
for overhead activities in amounts in excess of $2.3 billion. The same 
impacts associated with this type cut that were in the Myers amendment 
would occur because of this proposal, as well.
  Additionally, the amendment proposes specific cuts to programs that 
make our economy grow, like EDA, TVA, and ARC. It also cuts our 
investment programs in areas like highways, airports, mass transit, and 
community development grants. It cuts our research, on which the future 
depends, in areas like NASA, agriculture, NOAA, NIST, nuclear and other 
energy research as well as the broader research spectrum in the 
National Science Foundation program.
  Others will address the specific impacts of these cuts as we proceed. 
I want all Members to know that these cuts are large and significant 
and their impacts have not been fully analyzed or understood.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment should be rejected.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, we rise to offer this amendment to offset all of the 
costs of disaster aid. When part of America suffers, all of America 
ought to come to their aid. That is the premise of this amendment. I am 
reminded of the movie Dave in which a stand-in president sat down with 
his own accountant to try and find room in the Federal budget for a 
needed homeless shelter for families in the metropolitan regions of our 
country. They suggested to the cabinet the following morning a series 
of spending cuts to make room for that higher priority. As you might 
expect, the cabinet members began to gripe and grumble.
  Dave motioned to one cabinet member and said, ``Are you saying that 
your program is more important than this emerging need?'' And the 
cabinet member said, ``No, well, I wasn't saying that.'' Dave said, 
``Well, in that case, the decision has been made. We put the money in 
the new priority.''
  That is all we are talking about here. These are familiar cuts. We 
have dealt with this issue in the past. Many of these cuts have been 
voted on previously. In the past, we have proposed these cuts to reduce 
the deficit. All we are asking this time around is that we stop 
increasing the deficit by implementing these offsetting cuts. It is a 
reasonable plan and one that ought to be adopted.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. As 
I said before, I am not opposed to having a reserve fund for disaster 
assistance, and we had a reserve fund before 1990. But the Credit 
Reform Act of 1990 terminated all revolving loan funds. If we are going 
to reestablish these revolving loan funds, it ought to be done in 
authorizing legislation, rather than in appropriations bills.
  Now, I am going to put in the Record under the unanimous consent 
request the chairman got earlier, a table that shows specifically what 
is in this amendment that affects departments and agencies under the 
jurisdiction of my Appropriations subcommittee. But I want to highlight 
just a few things, because consistency has never been a virtue in this 
place, but rarely has inconsistency been so great as it is on some of 
the items that are in this proposal.
  Madam Chairman, if this were to be adopted, the FBI would lose 1,493 
people; INS would lose 1,188 and Federal prisons, 1,636. SBA could lose 
as many as 240 for 3 months, right at a time when the agency needs them 
to deal with the California earthquake. The amendment would also 
eliminate a plane that tracks hurricanes that is needed very badly. 
With respect to the Border Patrol, we had an argument here last fall 
and added 600 new Border Patrol personnel and they couldn't be added if 
this amendment passes.

                              {time}  1630

  The Californians were the ones that wanted them added the worst, and 
some of them, I understand, are now for not adding these Border 
Patrols. It is pretty difficult to say that one is really for doing 
something about crime and for doing more about crime and still do it, 
take it out in this way.
  So I say again, it is not that I am against the reserve fund, because 
I am for a reserve fund. But it ought to be established, we established 
the way we had it in authorizing legislation and not do it after the 
fact on an appropriations bill.
  I am opposed to this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I submit this table for the Record.

                                               COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE SUBCOMMITTEE--IMPACT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EARTHQUAKE SUPPLEMENTAL                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Recommended by                                                                                        
              Dept./Agency/Item                   Sec. No./Prop. resc.     Penny-Kasich      President                                            Impact                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of State/Diplomatic and Consular    Sec. 2161/-$600,000......  Yes...........  Yes...........  This reduction was reflected in the FY 1994 budget request and taken in the FY 1994   
 Program.                                                                                                  Appropriations Act. The reduction would reduce State Dept. Marine guard and other    
                                                                                                           security programs at diplomatic missions overseas.                                   
United States Information Agency:                                                                                                                                                               
    Salaries and Expenses....................  Sec. 2160(a)/-$6,000,000.  Yes (-$3M)....  Yes (-$3M)....  The House has approved a rescission of $2.2 million of USIA's FY 1994 Salaries and    
                                                                                                           Expenses account in H.R. 3400. A further rescission of $6 million in 1994 S&E would  
                                                                                                           greatly disrupt this operating account. In addition to $24 million in program cuts   
                                                                                                           reflected in the FY 1994 Appropriations Act, USIA must absorb $6.4 million in        
                                                                                                           unbudgeted locality pay costs. The agency will also incur substantial unbudgeted     
                                                                                                           costs related to planned consolidation of broadcasting activities and a major        
                                                                                                           restructuring of domestic activities. A furlough of all employees for three days     
                                                                                                           would have to be implemented and systems modernization, equipment replacement,       
                                                                                                           overseas cultural and information programs, and publications and other program       
                                                                                                           support would have to be curtailed if an additional rescission of $6 million were    
                                                                                                           enacted.                                                                             
    North/South Center.......................  Sec. 2160(c)/-$8,700,000.  Yes...........  Yes...........  This reduction would eliminate all funding for the North/South Center provided for FY 
                                                                                                           '94 and terminate the program. The cut would eliminate the only research, public     
                                                                                                           policy studies, and information center which carries out a full complement of        
                                                                                                           programs and grants exclusively allocated to finding practical solutions to the major
                                                                                                           problems confronting Western Hemisphere nations such as: immigration, drug-          
                                                                                                           trafficking, hemispheric economic integration and democratization.                   
    Educational and Cultural Exchange          Sec. 2160(b)/-$50,000,000  No............  No............  This proposed rescission would reduce the FY 1994 appropriation by 21 percent for     
     Programs.                                                                                             USIA's and result in a funding level $30 million below the FY 1993 appropriation. The
                                                                                                           rescission would result in elimination of 2400 grants from the 9800 funded for FY    
                                                                                                           1994 and would affect all programs, including Fulbright exchanges, International     
                                                                                                           Visitor and Citizen Exchanges and Congressionally earmarked projects. The rescission 
                                                                                                           would be exceedingly harmful to USIA's efforts in the former Soviet Union, the new   
                                                                                                           democracies of Eastern Europe, and in developing countries in Asia and Africa to     
                                                                                                           promote democracy and understanding of American culture and institutions.            
Legal Services Corporation...................  Sec. 2156/-$20,000,000...  Yes...........  No............  The reduction would cut deeply into the Congressional objective of equalizing funding 
                                                                                                           among local programs to address the 16% growth in the poverty population during the  
                                                                                                           1980's. Local programs experienced huge increases in eligible client population in   
                                                                                                           Texas, California, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and many other states. The cut would     
                                                                                                           also: completely eliminate the cost of living adjustment provided all programs in the
                                                                                                           FY '94 Act; and freeze funding for 105 programs (37 percent of the total).           
Small Business Administration................  Sec. 2158/-$13,100,000...  No............  Yes...........  This provision would rescind all FY 1994 funds appropriated to SBA for Congressional  
                                                                                                           add-ons to enhance small business development and job creation at specific           
                                                                                                           localities. Of the $13.1 million proposed for rescission, $2.3 million is for        
                                                                                                           ongoing, multi-year projects which would be seriously disrupted if the rescission    
                                                                                                           were enacted. The total list of projects is:                                         
                                                                                                          $175,000 for a grant to the Ben Franklin Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to     
                                                                                                           assist small businesses to qualify for and participate in the Small Business         
                                                                                                           Innovation Research (SBIR) program;                                                  
                                                                                                          $750,000 for a grant to the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center for the  
                                                                                                           North Carolina Small Business Capital Access Program to provide financial development
                                                                                                           assistance to small businesses;                                                      
                                                                                                          $500,000 for a grant to the Van Emmons Population, Marketing Analysis Center in       
                                                                                                           Towanda, Pennsylvania, for continuation of an integrated small business data base to 
                                                                                                           aid Appalachian Region small businesses;                                             
                                                                                                          $1,000,000 for a grant to the City of Prestonsburg, Kentucky, for small business      
                                                                                                           development assistance;                                                              
                                                                                                          $680,000 for a grant to the State of Nebraska for a statewide small business data base
                                                                                                           to facilitate the development of small businesses in rural communities;              
                                                                                                          $100,000 for a grant to the Institute for Economic Development, Western Kentucky      
                                                                                                           University to provide small business consulting services for senior citizens;        
                                                                                                          $5,000,000 for a grant for a National Center for Genome Resources in New Mexico to    
                                                                                                           provide consulting assistance, information and related activities to small           
                                                                                                           businesses;                                                                          
                                                                                                          $1,000,000 for a grant to the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the 
                                                                                                           Genesis small business incubator facility;                                           
                                                                                                          $1,000,000 for a grant to the WVHTC Foundation in West Virginia for build out,        
                                                                                                           equipment and operations costs for a small business incubator facility;              
                                                                                                          $300,000 for a grant to the Economic Development Council of Paducah, Kentucky, to     
                                                                                                           assist in the development of a small business incubator facility;                    
                                                                                                          $250,000 for a grant to Grant County, West Virginia, to establish a small business    
                                                                                                           development fund to provide financial assistance to small businesses and grants; and 
                                                                                                          Grants for the following continuing activities at the level designated for these      
                                                                                                           activities under the heading in Public Law 102-395: Hazard Community College in      
                                                                                                           Hazard, Kentucky, to assist in the development of a small business consulting,       
                                                                                                           information and assistance facility; Seton Hill College in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, 
                                                                                                           to provide for a small business consulting and assistance center for entrepreneurial 
                                                                                                           opportunity; the University of Central Arkansas to assist the Small Business         
                                                                                                           Institute Program of the Small Business Administration to establish and operate a    
                                                                                                           National Data Center; and the Iowa Waste Reduction Center, University of Northern    
                                                                                                           Iowa for a demonstration program to assist small business in complying with Federal  
                                                                                                           regulatory requirements (Total, $2,345,000.)                                         
Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and                                                                                                                                                     
 Atmospheric Administration:                                                                                                                                                                    
    1. Elimination of Weather Office Closure   Sec. 2151/-$20,000,000...  Yes...........  No............  The proposed rescission and the accompanying repeal of NWS certification would delay  
     Certification Procedures.                                                                             ongoing National Weather Service modernization efforts. In FY 1994 only $1M would be 
                                                                                                           saved by eliminating the office certification requirement. The Weather Service would 
                                                                                                           either: (1) furlough all staff for up to 22 days--clearly unacceptable to public     
                                                                                                           safety; or (2) delay opening up to 19 weather forecasting offices currently planned  
                                                                                                           for staffing in FY 1994 in: Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,         
                                                                                                           Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wyoming, California, Washington and Hawaii.  
                                                                                                           However, DOC estimates that the legislative repeal could result in outyear savings of
                                                                                                           $50 million (BA) during 1995-2001.                                                   
    2. Privatize NOAA Research Fleet.........  Sec. 2152/-$77,064,000...  Yes...........  No............  Proposal eliminates all FY '94 funds for NOAA fleet maintenance, repair (including    
                                                                                                           emergency repair) and modernization. This rescission eliminates funding for          
                                                                                                           construction of a new ship in Louisiana and Mississippi, and all additional funds for
                                                                                                           planning and monitoring NOAA's fleet requirements and/or privatization efforts. Some 
                                                                                                           vessels would be laid up and their crews furloughed. Depending on the availability of
                                                                                                           FY 1995 funding, the entire fleet could be tied up at a loss of 4000 days at sea,    
                                                                                                           seriously impacting the production of navigational charts, fisheries management and  
                                                                                                           ocean research.                                                                      
    3. Rescind Funds for NOAA Add-Ons........  Sec. 2153/(1) NOAA         Yes (-$71.3M).  Yes (-$6M)....  This proposal would eliminate funding provided over the budget request for certain    
                                                Operations, Research and                                   NOAA line items, possibly including: Elimination of expanded Coastal Zone Management 
                                                Facilities, -$37.8                                         program; curtail Non-point pollution monitoring; and termination of National Undersea
                                                million.                                                   Research Center Program (NURP). RIFs of personnel associated with these various      
                                                                                                           programs and activities could also occur.                                            
                                               (2) NOAA Construction, -   Yes (-$29.8M).  Yes (-$4M)....  This rescission reduces NOAA support for Columbia River fish hatchery maintenance,    
                                                $15.8 million.                                             delays acquisition of land for National Estuarine Research Reserves, and reduces     
                                                                                                           maintenance and facility repairs at fishery laboratories.                            
                                               (3) Aircraft Procurement,  Yes (-$43M)...  No............  Reduces by half funding for new hurricane reconnaissance aircraft. Delaying the       
                                                -$21.4 million.                                            acquisition of this aircraft will result in additional outyear spending since the    
                                                                                                           existing P-3 ``hurricane hunters'' built in 1973 will require replacement aircraft   
                                                                                                           before the turn of the century based on current rate of operations.                  
Economic Development Administration/EDA......  Sec. 2154/-$125 million..  Yes (-$159.9M)  No............  This rescission would eliminate all remaining funds for Public Works grants, thus     
                                                                                                           shutting down the program until next year. Up to 250 grants for projects designed to 
                                                                                                           relieve unemployment (average grant amount: $500K) would not be made. Also, $15      
                                                                                                           million in Title IX Economic Adjustment grants would not be made.                    
National Telecommunications and Information    Sec. 2155/-$15 million...  Yes (-$24M)...  No............  This rescission and the accompanying repeal PTFP authorization would result in a      
 Administration/Public Telecommunications                                                                  reduction of 60 percent of the program for FY 1994 and essentially shut down the     
 Facilities Grants.                                                                                        program for the rest of the year, eliminating funding for new-to-service coverage for
                                                                                                           Public TV and radio as well as the replacement and modernization of public           
                                                                                                           telecommunications facilities.                                                       
National Institute of Standards and Tech./     Sec. 2159/-$100 million..  No............  No............  Approximately 100 grants to private sector and academic consortia would not be made.  
 Advanced Technology Program.                                                                              Only 89 of 1000 applications have been funded to date. This program is a major       
                                                                                                           Administration and Congressional initiative to support economic recovery and         
                                                                                                           competitiveness of U.S industry abroad.                                              
Rescission of Funds for Administrative         Sec. 2603.                                                                                                                                       
 Overhead.                                                                                                                                                                                      
    (2) Dept. of Commerce....................  -$32,960,000.............  No............  No............  A cut of this amount would result in the inability of various Commerce agencies to    
                                                                                                           carry out their duties and activities required by statute. Specific impacts would    
                                                                                                           include: no additional printing and distribution of Census materials from the 1990   
                                                                                                           decennial census and ongoing periodic censuses; reduced monthly and quarterly        
                                                                                                           economic and statistical reports; severe reductions in field maintenance of Weather  
                                                                                                           Service equipment; reduced commerce participation in international trade             
                                                                                                           negotiations; and reduced enforcement of export controls. Also, a reduction of this  
                                                                                                           magnitude from these object classes will severely impact the Department's ability to 
                                                                                                           reprogram funds to cover locality pay requirements.                                  
    (5) Dept. of Justice.....................  -$133,790,000............  No............  No............  A $133.8 million reduction in administrative overhead for the Department of Justice   
                                                                                                           would have a significant effect on the Department's ability to perform its important 
                                                                                                           criminal justice functions. The Justice Department is already being forced to reduce 
                                                                                                           programs by $162 million in order to absorb unfunded locality pay increases in FY    
                                                                                                           1994. This rescission will further impact critical Justice programs, as follows:     
                                                                                                          Travel and transportation cuts will halt the hiring of the 66 new Border Patrol agents
                                                                                                           since the Department will be unable to train the new agents; will reduce the ability 
                                                                                                           of the Marshals Service to transport criminals and illegal aliens, and will          
                                                                                                           effectively halt the FBI's initiative to move Washington headquarters agents back to 
                                                                                                           field offices;                                                                       
                                                                                                          Cuts in contract services will reduce the availability of contract detention space    
                                                                                                           resulting in unacceptable and unsafe overcrowding of prisoners;                      
                                                                                                          Cuts in supplies and contract services will reduce the availability of medical care to
                                                                                                           Federal prisoners, and supply/material cuts would reduce the funds available for     
                                                                                                           gasoline and maintenance of FBI/DEA vehicles and for ammunition for all law          
                                                                                                           enforcement personnel.                                                               
    (7) Dept. of State.......................  -$43,220,000.............  No............  No............  This rescission would cut 15 percent of the funds appropriated for these activities   
                                                                                                           for FY 1994. This proposal, if enacted, would have a devastating impact on the       
                                                                                                           Department's ability to maintain vital post operations, particularly in remote and   
                                                                                                           undeveloped areas of the world; to conduct travel of the President and the Secretary 
                                                                                                           of State and supporting staff; to conduct international negotiations; to deliver     
                                                                                                           passport services to American citizens; to meet statutory requirements to publish and
                                                                                                           distribute foreign policy and international treaty information; and to manage the    
                                                                                                           Department's conduct of diplomatic activities.                                       
                                                                                                          Specifically, the rescission would significantly delay printing and issuing of        
                                                                                                           passports for American citizens; curtail travel by the President and the Secretary of
                                                                                                           State necessary for the conduct of our foreign relations as well as all other State  
                                                                                                           Department official travel necessary for the conduct of international negotiations on
                                                                                                           nuclear non-proliferation and other vital issues; eliminate supplies and materials   
                                                                                                           required for overseas post operations, including vital security and medical supplies 
                                                                                                           to maintain the health and safety of U.S. Government employees, and fuel, repair     
                                                                                                           parts, and generating equipment required at various posts in ``hardship areas''. In  
                                                                                                           addition, cuts of this magnitude in these administrative areas would have a major    
                                                                                                           impact on the Department's ability to absorb its locality pay requirements.          
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                      COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE SUBCOMMITTEE: ACCOUNTS AND AMOUNTS IN THE AMENDMENT PACKAGE THAT WERE IN H.R. 3511--NONE                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] or the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], is it their 
intention to do away completely with the Strategic petroleum Reserve 
account?
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, the answer is no.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, with their amendment, they are doing away 
with it. This amendment would rescind all unobligated balances, 
approximately $323 million, from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
account.
  This would end all oil acquisition. It would take away the money 
necessary to withdraw oil in the event of an emergency.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
all this does is rescind the unobligated balance of this account as of 
the date of enactment. That does not do away with the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. It just said that that we have not obligated yet we 
do not need to spend at this point.
  We are not giving away the whole project, Madam Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, they have the oil in the ground, but they 
do not have any money, if this amendment goes through, to take that oil 
out of the ground.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, we are not. The Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve will still continue to exist. What we are saying is, and it is 
filled, we are filling it on a regular basis. We are saying, those 
monies that have been appropriated but not yet obligated for more oil 
does not need to be used at this point. We can get back to doing more 
filling come next year to help us pay. We are not doing away with it.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, I point out to the gentleman that he is 
eliminating a source of money that would be necessary to be able to 
withdraw the oil from the ground, as was the situation that existed 
during the gulf war. He is going to do away with the money that is 
necessary to deal with the question of high temperatures, which is 
jeopardizing the oil in the ground and has to be corrected.
  We will not have the money for that. He is doing away with the money 
that is necessary to extend the life of existing storage facilities.
  I do not think that was the intention of his amendment, but that is 
going to be the effect of his amendment.
  This amendment is created by guess and by gosh. It hits the Interior 
and Related Agencies appropriation particularly hard. Out of the $13 
billion 1994 appropriation, at least $617 million would be eliminated, 
or nearly 5 percent. And for the most part it comes in areas where the 
Congress has already made significant reductions or in areas where 
programmatically it makes no sense.


                     reduction to overhead accounts

  The amendment reduces so called overhead accounts in the Department 
of the Interior by $94,450,000. While it seems simple, lets look at 
what this money buys.
  Travel money allows Minerals Management Services auditors to travel 
to make audits to assure that royalty payments are accurately paid. A 
travel reduction will ultimately reduce revenues for the Federal 
treasury.
  Office of Surface Mining inspectors must travel to enforce the 
Surface Mining Act. Does this mean we don't want the law enforced?
  If printing is reduced, the National Park Service would have to limit 
the availability of park brochures for visitors, brochures which have 
vital information for visitor safety and resource protection in the 
parks. Cutting printing also hurts the agencies ability to communicate 
their research to the public. Here I include Geological Survey maps and 
the results of earthquake and volcano research.
  The amendment would reduce supplies and materials but many of the 
Department's program responsibilities are heavily dependent on supplies 
and materials. For example, school supplies for Indian children, and 
materials necessary to operate and maintain public facilities and roads 
in parks and other recreation areas.
  I would also point out, that for fiscal year 1994 the President 
proposed and the Congress agreed to a $42 million reduction in these 
areas.


             strategic petroleum reserve petroleum account

  The amendment would rescind all unobligated balances, approximately 
323 million. This would end all oil acquisition and take away the money 
necessary to withdraw oil in the event of an emergency. It would also 
eliminate a source of money to alleviate problems with high 
temperatures and gas in currently stored oil and for upgrading and 
extending the life of existing storage facilities.


              land and water conservation fund rescissions

  This amendment proposes a 50 percent reduction to the fiscal year 
1994 appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Why? To 
bow to the god of deficit reduction. But let us look at why we are in 
the business of land acquisition.
  First of all, there are individual citizens who own land within 
authorized boundaries of our parks, our forests, and our refuges. If 
these people want to sell, the Federal Government is the only buyer. If 
the Federal Government can't buy, for lack of money, we are punishing 
these private landowners who want or have to sell.
  Another reason we buy and exchange land is to consolidate holdings to 
improve management of our Federal lands. In some cases, through the 
exchange process, land management agencies are able to obtain lands 
which are adjacent to existing holdings in exchange for lands that are 
isolated parcels. As a result there are efficiencies gained which help 
us protect resource values.
  We also buy land to protect critical habitat for endangered species; 
to preserve wetlands; to preserve cultural resources and to preserve 
natural resources.
  Of the $900 million authorized for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, less than 30 percent was appropriated, or $254,277,000 for fiscal 
year 1994. And the 1994 appropriation is less than the 1993 
appropriation of $286,084,000, an 11 percent reduction.


                         U.S. Geological Survey

  The amendment would reduce the U.S. Geological Survey by $30 million 
in a supplemental which is providing up to $15 million in additional 
funds for this agency which plays the predominant role in research and 
investigation of earthquakes such as the very one which is the main 
reason for this supplemental appropriation. What sense does it make to 
give with one hand and take away with the other? The reduction will 
also result in delays in the recently begun national water quality 
assessment, modernization of mapping systems which could reduce the 
time and manpower necessary to provide the Government's mapping needs, 
and hazards reduction programs related to earthquakes, landslides, and 
volcanic eruptions.


                      Minerals Management Service

  The amendment would decrease the Minerals Management Service by $20 
million which amounts to over 10 percent of the $193 million 
appropriation for the MMS in fiscal year 1994.
  The MMS is responsible for the royalty management program within the 
Department of the Interior. What this means is the MMS manages the 
collection and auditing of all the rents and royalties associated with 
onshore and offshore oil and gas and other minerals development on 
Federal lands. This program is expected to generate $6 billion in 
revenues to the Federal Treasury and to the States and Indian tribes in 
fiscal year 1994.
  A decrease in the MMS budget will not save money, it will cost the 
Federal Treasury and the States in the lost revenue. A decrease of $20 
million would result in severe downsizing of the royalty collection and 
auditing programs. There is a statute of limitations on the length of 
time the MMS can wait before it initiates an audit. If the audit 
program is downsized, less audits will be initiated. Revenues not only 
will be lost in the short term, audits that are not begun before the 
statute of limitations runs out will result in the permanent loss of 
revenues, not only to the Federal Government but also to the States and 
the Indian tribes.
  For each $1 million reduction to the MMS royalty management program, 
at least $20 million would be lost in revenues. Thus, a reduction of 
$20 million in the MMS Program would result in lost revenues of $400 
million.


                       National Biological Survey

  The amendment proposes to rescind $20 million from the new National 
Biological Survey, 12 percent of this agency's budget. This new agency 
was formed in an effort to solve natural resource problems before they 
reach a crisis stage such as we are experiencing in the Pacific 
Northwest. The northern spotted owl and various salmon species are in 
trouble there and have caused economic disruption because we were slow 
to recognize the danger signs. With the National Biological Survey we 
want to take steps to mitigate these problems before the economic 
confrontation stage is reached. It is short-sighted to take away a 
minimal investment to avoid economic problems similar to those we face 
in the Pacific Northwest.


                        Smithsonian Institution

  The amendment provides for a rescission of $6.8 million to an 
appropriation already at the 1993 level. The Smithsonian receives $76 
million from private sources with little opportunity to expand income. 
The amendment would lead to the closing of museum galleries or 
reduction in hours open to the public and closing of the National Zoo 
to the public 1 day a week.


                        National Gallery of Art

  The amendment also provides for a rescission of $1 million to the 
National Gallery of Art. Under the terms of the gift to the United 
States of the National Gallery buildings and its original collections, 
the National Gallery cannot charge entrance fees and would have 
difficulty in adding to the $12 million in private funds it already 
receives on an annual basis.


                    national endowment for the arts

  The National Endowment for the Arts is everyone's favorite whipping 
boy when it comes to reductions. But, not everyone realizes the degree 
to which the Arts Endowment has already taken budget reductions. The 
fiscal year 1994 appropriation is already $4,365,000 below the 
President's request for the National Endowment for the Arts; it is 
$4,365,000 below the amount this House authorized for 1994; it is 
already $4,232,000 below the fiscal year 1993 level; and if the 
Congress had kept pace with inflation since 1981, the appropriation for 
the arts would have been $261 million. But the Congress has not done 
that. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation is $170 million, $91 million 
below what would be needed to deliver the same program level as was 
available in 1981. This means that the Arts Endowment's ability to 
provide grants to States and local jurisdictions is already reduced by 
more than one-third of what it was in 1981.

              EMERGENCY EARTHQUAKE SUPPLEMENTAL PENNY/KASICH OFFSET INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fiscal year 1994        Proposed         Percent  
                      Agency/account                              enacted            rescission       reduction 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management:                                                                                      
    Land acquisition.......................................          12,122,000           6,061,000           50
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:                                                                                 
    Land acquisition.......................................          82,655,000          41,327,000           50
National Biological Survey:                                                                                     
    Research, inventories, and surveys.....................         163,519,000          20,000,000           12
National Park Service:                                                                                          
    Land acquisition and State assistance..................          95,250,000          30,000,000           31
U.S. Geological Survey:                                                                                         
    Surveys, investigations, and research..................         584,685,000          30,000,000            5
Minerals Management Service:                                                                                    
    Leasing and royalty management.........................         193,197,000          20,000,000           10
Bureau of Mines:                                                                                                
    Mines and Minerals.....................................         169,436,000          10,000,000            6
Department of the Interior:                                                                                     
    General Reduction......................................                   0          94,450,000  ...........
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
        Total, Department of the Interior..................  ..................         251,838,000  ...........
                                                            ====================================================
Forest Service:                                                                                                 
    Land acquisition.......................................          64,250,000          32,125,000           50
Department of Energy:                                                                                           
    SPR Petroleum Account..................................  ..................         318,800,000          100
Smithsonian Institution:                                                                                        
    Salaries and Expenses..................................         302,349,000           6,047,000            2
    Construction & Improvements, Zoo.......................           5,400,000             108,000            2
    Repair and Restoration of Buildings....................          24,000,000             480,000            2
    Construction...........................................          10,400,000             208,000           2 
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
        Total, Smithsonian.................................         342,149,000           6,843,000  ...........
                                                            ====================================================
National Gallery of Art:                                                                                        
    Salaries and Expenses..................................          51,908,000           1,038,000            2
    Repair and Restoration of Buildings....................           2,831,000              57,000           2 
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
        Total, National Gallery............................          54,739,000           1,095,000  ...........
                                                            ====================================================
National Endowment for the Arts:                                                                                
    Grants and Administration..............................         140,836,000           2,817,000            2
    Matching Grants........................................          29,392,000             588,000           2 
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
        Total, NEA.........................................         170,228,000           3,405,000  ...........
                                                            ====================================================
National Endowment for the Humanities:                                                                          
    Grants and Administration..............................         151,300,000           3,026,000            2
    Matching Grants........................................          26,191,000             524,000           2 
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
        Total, NEH.........................................         177,491,000           3,550,000  ...........
                                                            ====================================================
        Grand total........................................  ..................         617,656,000  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Madam Chairman, no matter what the outcome of this is 
today, I come from California. And I think it is the responsible thing 
for us to do, is to vote to give funds for relief to California and the 
victims of the earthquake.
  I think that is the responsible position, and the four of us who 
coauthored this amendment today intend to do just that.
  There is really no good choice here today. There is no perfect 
solution to this. But what we are proposing here today is a responsible 
solution, and the solution that we are proposing simply means that we 
pay as we go.
  We have heard a lot of discussion today about, we are going to take 
programs away from other States or we are going to eliminate certain 
amounts of money from a program and other people are going to get hurt 
from other areas. Well, the choice we have is to either do the 
responsible thing by making the cut in the Federal budget or deferring 
to the national debt, putting that off to a later date. And we have 
done that plenty around here.
  It is sort of ``out of sight, out of mind,'' just add it to the debt.
  We believe what we are proposing today is a responsible approach to 
disaster relief funds.
  Let me tell Members, everything on that list they have voted either 
for or against in Penny-Kasich, with the exception of the cuts to 
foreign aid. There is nothing new on that list.
  For those Members who supported Penny-Kasich, they ought to be able 
to support this in a breeze. Should be no work for them at all.
  The process is flawed. We need to do something different about 
disaster relief. We need to make changes.
  One thing we have done today is to focus on that, that we need to pay 
as we go. We need to have set-asides, because it is inevitable, we are 
going to continue to have disasters around the country. That is 
unfortunate, but that is going to occur. We need to have a process that 
we can pay for it as we go, and that is what we are doing today.
  I ask Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
offsetting amendment.
  This amendment would adversely affect a number of programs under the 
VA-HUD Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  Part of the amendment would reduce the funds available for salary 
costs in 1994 by $1.575 billion. The amendment would also reduce 
administrative expenses by $1.8 billion--including $143 million from 
VA.
  This part of the amendment is similar to the one offered by Mr. 
Myers. But it is really more devastating because the reduction in 
salary funds proposed for rescission more than doubles--from $750 
million to $1.575 billion.
  The agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction--and I think this 
is true for most of the Federal agencies--did not receive any 
additional 1994 funds for the so-called locality pay increase. Those 
costs are being absorbed. In the VA's medical care account, for 
instance, the cost of locality pay is approximately $130 million.
  I received a letter this morning from VA Secretary Jessie Brown--and 
I mentioned this during debate on the Myers amendment--stating that an 
amendment of this impact would have a disastrous impact. He indicated 
that a proportional reduction in the salary rescission would equate to 
$160 million and that would result in a reduction of 3,300 FTE. Since 
the Defense Department is now exempted--and it was not exempted in an 
early version--the reduction for VA would exceed $300 million equating 
to over 6,000 employees. By the time this would be implemented we would 
be halfway through the year, that would equate to a reduction of more 
than 12,000 employees. That will result in 20,000 fewer inpatients 
receiving treatment and 400,000 fewer outpatient visits.
  Madam Chairman, it is not fair to reduce medical treatment for 
veterans to help pay for the much needed assistance in southern 
California.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, here we go again, with all the wild 
charges Members put out on the street. Just to give an example of one 
comment made earlier, all we are doing with the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is reducing it from 20,000 barrels a day to 13,000 barrels a 
day. All of a sudden, everybody feels all sorts of pain over that. I 
cannot believe it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, the gentleman's figures are correct, 
except that that was done by our Committee on Appropriations. It will 
not be done by the gentleman.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, then it should not hurt at all.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
on the contrary. The gentleman is eliminating funding for taking the 
oil out of the ground, should an emergency arise, and also he will do 
away with the funding to correct the heating conditions.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, let me, first of all, again, compliment 
my colleagues on the Democrat side, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Penny] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who have taken 
some heat on this, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle], who 
basically was tied to a bumper on the back of a car and dragged around 
his district because he decided that we needed to be responsible, when 
he had a flood that affected his district.
  Now we have come back, and we have got the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit] involved. He is not having a good day either.
  But I want to tell Members that the vote we are going to have is 
nothing new. First of all, none of the entitlement programs that were 
in Penny-Kasich are contained in here. We use discretionary cuts or 
slow the increase in discretionary spending to offset the earthquake 
aid.
  We hear about this $180 billion deficit that the President talked 
about. The deficit for this fiscal year is coming in at $235 billion. 
The 180 billion is a projection. I hope that is where we end up.
  But even if we get to 180 billion in deficits, that is not a reason 
to pop the champagne corks, because the national debt is going up 38 
percent.

                              {time}  1640

  There is a 38-percent increase in the national debt, and we all know 
it is future generations that will pay for this. Let us kind of get to 
the bottom line in terms of this amendment. We are not devastating any 
programs. Penny-Kasich, in and of itself, only cut a penny on a dollar 
over 5 years. This is a tiny little nick. This is a tiny little nick in 
the massive increase in Federal spending.
  I want to tell the Members what I am most concerned about here today. 
It is kind of a constant murmur that is going on throughout the House. 
I think we have to think about it as we are headed over here to cast 
our vote on paying for this program.
  Let me tell the Members what it is. The murmur goes something like 
this: ``I am not going to vote. I am not going to vote to nick any 
spending in my district, to send to those people out there in 
California.''
  I say to my colleague, the gentleman from California and I say this 
not for the purpose of debate, but to make the point to him, can he 
imagine that there is a murmur among some of our colleagues who say, 
``Hey, I am not going to let my district be affected to send anything 
to help those people out there in California.''
  Let me say, that may be human nature, but that is not the American 
spirit. Do the Members know what the American spirit is? When 
somebody's barn blows down, we do not go and plow our own fields the 
next day. We saddle up the horse, and we go over to their barn. Do the 
Members know what we do? We raise their barn, together with our 
neighbors.
  When the flood wiped my mother's family out, many years ago in McKees 
Rocks, PA, the neighbors came in and said, ``What can we do to help 
you?''
  In my neighborhood of Westerville, when a neighbor gets sick or when 
somebody dies in the neighborhood, do the Members know what we do? We 
stop our routine, we tighten our belt, and we say to those neighbors, 
``What can we do to help you?'' That is what we are talking about here 
on this vote.
  We are not talking about anything other than saying, all of America 
saying to the people in California, the son of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], his condo was wiped out in California. What I 
want to say to my colleague, Mr. Dellums, I want to say, ``I am ready 
to stand up with the people from central Ohio and all over this country 
in the time of your tragedy, and I am willing to nick, I am willing to 
nick some of the programs that we have out there to slow the increase 
in growth of these programs, to help you, because that is the American 
way. We tighten our belts, we hike up our pants, and we say to those 
who have been bit by tragedy, ``We want to pitch in to help you.'' That 
is what this vote is all about. It is part of what may be wrong a 
little bit with our country.
  They say that out in California when the earthquake hit, the people 
left their homes and they went to run next door to their neighbors, to 
visit their neighbors, and they found out that they did not know who 
their neighbors were.
  This is the beginning of leadership by this Congress, to say to the 
American people, ``We want to pitch in and help you. We don't want to 
saddle future generations with a bigger national debt and make somebody 
else pay.''
  I would say to the Members, come on, let us come to the floor. Let us 
come up with the $10 billion that we have provided in a package that 
Members have already voted for, either in the so-called Penny-Kasich 
amendment or in the so-called Sabo amendment. The only difference is 
some foreign aid we have cut back, and slowing some Federal land 
acquisition.
  Come to the floor and let us make a good decision here to help the 
people of California, a vote that helps future generations, and one 
that provides some leadership for the way we ought to be to our 
neighbors, no matter where they live in this country.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania [Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky].
  Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY. Madam Chairman, this has been a difficult 
winter for many people, from the citizens of California whose lives 
were devastated by the California earthquake to people who, for lack of 
money, cannot afford to heat their homes during the cold snap in the 
East.
  Fornuately, Americans are generous.
  Today, we are debating how our Government can help. And we should 
help. But, just as many people are facing a catastrophe because of 
these natural causes, the American people face another type of 
catastrophe, a budget catastrophe.
  The natural catastrophe we cannot control; the budget catastrophe we 
not only control, but we have created. Unless we make the difficult 
decisions today, we only hasten the onset of something far worse 
tomorrow.
  For that reason, I ask all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment. Let us help the victims of this winter's natural disasters, 
while also supporting our children and our grandchildren by not 
burdening them with additional debt.
  Let us pass this important aid, but do it in a fiscally responsible 
manner. Support the Penny-Kasich amendment.
  Mr. NATCHER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill].
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment makes significant reductions to many existing 
programs and activities throughout the Government.
  Most of the provisions in this amendment have not had the benefit of 
public hearings. We have seen no testimony, heard no witnesses, and 
have had no discussions among the members of the impact on many of 
these programs.
  This amendment contains a number of items under the jurisdiction of 
my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. For example, the 
amendment includes a proposal to reduce the Department of Energy's 
magnetic fusion program by $70 million. A reduction of that size would 
paralyze the domestic fusion research and development program and 
seriously jeopardize the international program involving Russia, 
Europe, Japan, and the United States. The proposed reduction would be a 
serious threat to this program's ability to provide a safe, 
environmentally attractive, inexhaustible and competitively priced 
source of energy for our future.
  This amendment also includes a proposed rescission of $138,289,000 
for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects which would 
jeopardize funding for any project in the corps' general investigations 
and construction, general programs and the Bureau's construction 
program that did not meet the criteria established by the amendment.
  The criteria would have the effect of removing the Congress from the 
decision making process on individual Corps of Engineers and Bureau of 
Reclamation projects, and permit the executive branch to make the 
determination if a project will move forward or stop. The criteria is 
written so broadly that it would permit the administration to withhold 
funding for a project even if that project is underway, is authorized, 
is economically justified, and is being cost-shared as required by law 
simply because it does not meet certain policies of the corps and/or 
OMB.
  While the amendment does not specify which projects will be 
terminated, it could jeopardize funding for almost 100 projects 
included in our fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill.
  Madam Chairman, we rejected these proposals last November and we 
should reject them again. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment has many good features.
  It reduces funds going to the World Bank by $28 million.
  It reduces foreign military aid by $26 million.
  It reduces the ICC by $10 million. I do not know anyone the ICC 
helps, other than those who work for it.
  It reduces land acquisition funds by $189 million. The Federal 
Government owns almost one third of our land already, and cannot even 
take good care of what it now has.
  Most of the savings, over $1.5 billion, come from the 252,000 
reduction in Federal employees which has been advocated by President 
Clinton himself.
  Almost all of these reductions are things that the overwhelming 
majority of our constituents would reduce or cut if given the chance to 
do so.
  However, I need to mention one specific reduction.
  The amendment reduces the amount for new Federal buildings by $160 
million.
  Former Mayor Koch of New York said this in a recent column:

       The federal government is nutty. Given the collapse of the 
     commercial real estate market, vacancy rates are in the 
     double digits in many cities, as high as 25 percent in New 
     York City. So why is the federal government building new 
     federal office buildings in Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York 
     and elsewhere to house government agencies instead of renting 
     or purchasing existing space? It brings to mind the old line, 
     ``I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

  This is a relatively small cut percentagewise.
  We need to build some buildings--but we do not need some of the 
lavish ones we are building.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr].
  (Mr. CARR of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding the time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I was 
interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, and I have been 
listening to his speeches for a long time, and the more he talks the 
better he gets. But in this particular case, rather than giving a good 
speech, which he did, I think we ought to examine the content.
  We all that Americans are very charitable, and to help our neighbors 
who are in distress we do in fact suck it up, tighten our belt and 
voluntarily sacrifice so that they can be made whole. That, however, is 
not what this amendment is all about. This amendment is about requiring 
the Congress and the Federal Government to tell people not that they 
are going to volunteer their resources to help someone else, but they 
are going to be forced to sacrifice for someone else.
  In the Department of Transportation, this amendment has some dire 
consequences for the average working American in this country. For 
example, it includes $250 million from the transit operating expenses. 
That equates to 46 percent of the unobligated balance remaining in the 
operating subsidy account. Los Angeles has requested $57 million from 
the transit administration for operating assistance, and if that is 
approved, the remaining operating assistance not yet obligated would 
have to be cut by 52 percent.
  Further, cities like Boston and Minneapolis, which have already 
received their operating assistance funding for the year, would be 
exempt from the cuts. So Minneapolis and Boston would not be in the 
mode of forced sacrifice.
  But there are other cities that are not so fortunate.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The amendment would reduce funding available to agencies and 
activities funded in the Transportation Appropriations Act by more than 
$1 billion. Of that amount, nearly $700 million has already been 
rescinded by H.R. 3511. That legislation will be offered as an 
amendment to this bill by Mr. Fazio. I support those reductions. It is 
the additional $500 to $600 million of the Nussle amendment that is so 
troublesome.
  It includes $250 million from transit operating expenses. This 
equates to 46 percent of the unobligated balance remaining in the 
operating subsidy account. Los Angeles has requested $57 million from 
the Federal Transit Administration for operating assistance. If that is 
approved, the remaining operating assistance not yet obligated would 
have to be cut by 52 percent. Cities like Boston and Minneapolis that 
have already received all their operating assistance funding for the 
year would be exempt from cuts. Others would not be so fortunate. The 
Chicago area could lose $26 million. Detroit could lose $11 million. 
San Francisco, $6 million. I have a list that shows the effect of the 
$250 million reduction for all affected communities. And it is not just 
large cities. Tucson would lose nearly $1 million. Davenport-Rock 
Island would lose more than $500,000.
  In areas under 200,000 in population where Federal operating 
assistance averages 20 percent of the total operating expenses, a 52-
percent cut would probably result in at least a 20-percent reduction in 
service. Some systems might be forced to close totally for a period of 
time. The economic and social disruptions caused by such a cut in 
service would be enormous.
  The amendment would also reduce administrative expenses of the 
Department of Transportation by $265 million. But the wording of the 
amendment would cut much more than just true administrative expenses. 
Major acquisition programs of the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation 
Administration would be included. Items that could be reduced or 
eliminated include aids to navigation, aircraft parts and weather 
observation equipment. Other items that would be subject to reduction 
include communications contracts of the FAA, which would directly 
affect the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system. 
Throughout the government, I am sure there would be many more such 
instances. I can't believe that is the intent of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment also would reduce funding for civilian 
personnel expenses by $1.6 billion. Apparently, this is supposed to 
represent the 1994 part of the 252,000 employee reduction. For fiscal 
year 1994, however, those cuts have already been made. Thus, the 
gentleman's amendment would take that money twice, resulting in further 
personnel reductions. For the Department of Transportation, this would 
mean an additional reduction of approximately $90 million. Coming at 
this time in the year, such a reduction would be extremely disruptive, 
probably necessitating a major reduction in force.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, this is a tough choice. This is a very 
difficult vote. This is a $20 billion problem since I was elected in 
1991, and if this passes, we will have had $20 billion roughly go for 
disaster assistance, drought assistance, Midwest flood, L.A. riots, 
Chicago flood, hurricanes in Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii. It could 
be another $20 billion in the next 4 years. So I encourage the Members 
to carefully consider the importance of this vote.
  I have worked diligently with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Penny] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and I respect them 
both deeply. I have worked against rules to defeat budgets that I think 
are over budget, worked against the advanced solid rocket motor, and 
the space station, and I will continue to do so because we have done 
much on the deficit, but much much more needs to be done.
  But I hear my colleagues, when I voted for Penny-Kasich of $90 
billion in cuts, say this is the same thing. It is not the same thing. 
it is not close to the same thing. It is not close to the same thing. 
This is very different, and it is different in a simple way. Penny-
Kasich had a shared sacrifice, a shared benefit for deficit reduction 
which was good for everybody. This is targeted sacrifice, it is 
targeted benefit, and it will create other disasters if we set this 
precedent for policy.
  If we cut billions of dollars from Chicago, which is not in my 
district, for community development block grants and education, and we 
vote for, and I will vote for a tough crime bill, we will be taking the 
preventive measures away from these children.
  I encourage Members before they vote today to look at the third page 
of the Washington Post and the Chicago papers and see that in America, 
not Calcutta, 19 children were fighting for food with rats and lice. 
This is a tough choice. But make sure that we keep our money in for 
prevention. Do not vote for this amendment. Let us look for a long-term 
solution.
  I have not been happy with the Speaker's lack of progress on 
appointing a committee. He finally appointed the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. 
And I hope he appoints the rest of the committee today. I hope we look 
not just at FEMA, but at a long-term solution for the budget, and a 
long-term solution for making ways that we pay for this.
  I have asked the Speaker for a letter, and he has given me his 
assurances on many of these things. But politics, ladies and gentlemen, 
is about tough choices. Do not let anybody tell you that the tough 
choice is Penny-Kasich. The tough choice is making sure that we come up 
with a just solution for this very difficult problem.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding 
the time. The gentleman from Indiana, my good friend, is right. This is 
a very difficult vote and a tough choice, but the good news is that 
Members do not need to have a long-term memory to understand what is 
happening here. They can act on their short-term memory, because this 
is the third time in just three years that we have had massive 
emergencies that have required us to break our commitments with respect 
to spending caps.
  I was not happy when I went through the list of cuts that are on this 
amendment. Some of them made me smile because I agree with them. Some 
of them made me flinch a little bit, and some of them, frankly, made my 
stomach tight, understanding that they were on the list. But that is 
the essence of tough choices. That is the essence of bipartisanship.
  But I think my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] had 
it right at the beginning when he said that there are no good choices 
here today. But the final choice is whether we pay for this emergency 
ourselves, or whether we pay for it by asking our children to do so.
  I choose to pay for it ourselves.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  (Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Penny-Kasich amendment. This amendment would unfairly and 
drastically cut U.S. development assistance to Africa, the poorest 
continent on Earth. U.S. aid to Africa is already disproportionately 
low compared to other parts of the world. To cut assistance further 
would be seriously detrimental to all we seek to achieve, both 
politically and economically, in Africa.
  The proposed $200 million cut in the development fund for Africa, a 
25-percent cut, would force termination of many desperately needed 
programs such as poverty reduction, child survival, basic education, 
and nutrition. I emphasize to Members that this most basic level of 
program is at issue. Do we truly want to cut this type of assistance to 
a continent stricken by famine, disease, and civil war?
  To quote from AID Administrator Brian Atwood's testimony this 
morning, Penny-Kasich would be ``devastating for South Africa.'' The 
South African election, scheduled for late April, will cap a remarkable 
transition from apartheid to nonracial democracy. Yet South Africa will 
need immediate assistance to ensure that the enormous transition is 
successful. Does this House really want to endanger the future of 
nonracial democracy in South Africa?
  The American people, even in this anti-foreign-aid atmosphere, know 
right from wrong. The American people know morality from its opposite.
  The right vote, the moral vote, is to defeat Penny-Kasich. I implore 
Members not to inflict yet more suffering on Africa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, as a Californian I support the need 
for earthquake relief. But as an American, I believe that we must 
provide this relief by making offsetting cuts, not by piling on further 
debt onto the backs of every man, woman, and child in California and in 
the rest of the United States.

                              {time}  1700

  Our national debt is destroying our children's future, and that 
threat is a much bigger threat than any of the proposed cuts in the 
list offered by our colleagues in the amendment before us. This 
amendment starts us off in a new direction by making offsetting cuts.
  If we cannot sacrifice by cutting $10 billion in order to provide 
earthquake relief, we do not deserve to be here. We need to control our 
spending, Madam Chairman. Let us begin here.
  I urge approval of this amendment.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Chairman, the disasters which we have witnessed in America in 
the last 12 months have demonstrated extraordinary acts of courage by 
Americans and extraordinary acts of political perfidy by this House of 
Representatives.
  Today we are debating whether or not we are going to make substantial 
cuts in essential services in the Federal Government so that the 
victims of the California earthquake, who are looking for shelter and 
food, will receive our assistance. Those who argue that they are 
showing courage today by putting the fate of these victims on the line, 
I think, overstate the case. I think what they are suggesting in terms 
of cuts, in terms of essential services, are wrong, dead wrong. To cut 
581 employees from the Food and Drugs Administration means, for every 
American family within the sound of my voice, we will not see drug 
approvals coming through as they should; approvals of medical devices 
to help people who are suffering; the inspection of mammography 
clinics, and inspection of those laboratories which are life and death 
in terms of the future of America's health. That is what we will 
sacrifice if the Penny-Kasich amendment passes.
  To do that in the name of helping earthquake victims, I think, is 
dead wrong. It is morally wrong for us to create this choice. The best 
choice is to say that we are going to look at this problem in a 
serious, long-term fashion, to take the bipartisan task force which the 
Speaker has appointed to deal with disasters and come up with honest 
solutions.
  The Penny-Kasich approach cuts those agencies in the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture which are responsible for helping today's flood victims. 
That makes no sense whatsoever.
  Please, keep in mind that somewhere in southern California in some 
shelter there sits a homeless person watching this debate wondering if 
this Congress will ever finish all of this hot air in time to deliver 
the kind of assistance they need to put their lives back in order.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the observation made by the gentleman 
from Illinois. He made a similar observation last summer when he 
accused those who wanted to pay for Midwest flood relief with budget 
cuts of slowing down flood assistance. In reality, it did not slow down 
flood assistance for a single day. Flood assistance money was already 
in the pipeline just as earthquake aid. Money is now already on the 
ground in California.
  This debate will consume only another 20 minutes and will not slow 
down by 1 day the needed relief for California victims.
  I am also encouraged that the gentleman from Illinois has been named 
as a cochairman of the commission to review disaster aid for the 
future. But, you know, we have dealt with disasters year after year, 
and we always borrow the money. We put it on the national credit card.
  This last summer I am convinced that much of the talk about a task 
force to deal with disaster assistance was designed to get enough votes 
to borrow the money for one more disaster. Now, another disaster is 
upon us, and the best we have done is to name cochairmen of a task 
force. Evidently, this is designed to get us past one more disaster 
package without paying for it.
  Sometime in the near future there will be a third disaster. We will 
be told at that time that there is an ongoing study by the task force, 
and we should not preempt the study, and we will borrow the money one 
more time for another disaster.
  And somewhere not too much farther down the line, we will have 
another disaster, and we will be told that the study is near 
completion. And so now is not the time to pay for aid. Wait for the 
study to be completed.
  My colleagues, now is the time to pay for aid. We have already put 
too much on the national credit card.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank you and I thank the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations for bringing a bill which has a massive 
impact on my district and is the basis on which we who represent the 
most impacted congressional districts can turn this terrible disaster 
around. I thank you so much. I thank everyone in this House who is 
contemplating supporting this bill for helping us at a time of need.
  You know, I listened to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and 
others during the floods and the earlier disaster, and I empathized 
with what they were going through. I had no idea, I had no idea of the 
kind of devastation these things can cause to the people, to the homes, 
and to the businesses of a community.
  But in 2 short weeks since this event happened, I have seen it in so 
many parts of my district impacting so many people who were struggling 
at the margins in any event, and I thank all of you, and I have a great 
feeling of appreciation for the incredible voluntary movements that 
exist in the Red Cross and Salvation Army and the massive help that 
FEMA has been.
  Anyone who wants to dump on Federal employees and dismiss bureaucrats 
ought to watch this operation in action with Federal people coming from 
all over the country to provide this assistance.
  But I just want to say we have to be accountable for our actions, and 
if this amendment were to pass, we are then asking Members of this 
body, Congressmen from New York City who are facing a $2 billion 
deficit in their city budget, or the Congressman from Cleveland or 
Chicago or from any of the rural areas to cut the lifeblood of their 
districts, the operating subsidies to their transit systems, the 
community development block grants, the rural electrification programs, 
the public works projects in their districts to help us. And we cannot 
be asking our Members to commit political suicide.
  The support for this bill will evaporate if this amendment passes. 
You have to look at the consequences of your conduct.
  If you care about providing this relief, you must oppose and defeat 
this amendment. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, I am trying to remain optimistic about 
the institution's ability to someday control spending. But I have got 
to tell you that sometimes that optimism tends to fade, because I have 
heard just a litany of people talking about how devastating these cuts 
are to all of these programs of the Federal Government.
  Let us put it in perspective. $10 billion in cuts out of a year's 
worth of $500 billion in discretionary spending. Do you know what that 
is? Two percent. We are trying to cut discretionary spending over this 
fiscal year 2 percent. Do you know what the cut is out of the total 
budget of the United States? it is less than 1 percent.
  I mean, people are running around here saying, ``The sky is going to 
fall. We are not going to have oil. We are not going to be able to have 
any crops.''
  Hey, folks, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me about what you are 
saying on the floor today?
  We are going to vote on a balanced-budget amendment, and you are 
telling me we cannot cut 1 percent? It is not a cut, a slowdown in the 
increase by 1 percent to pay for people who have been hit in an 
earthquake.
  Man, somebody is not getting the message about what they are saying 
out across this country. They want us to act like a family, make some 
choices. I mean, you would think we were cutting this budget by 50 
percent. We are talking about less than a 1-percent reduction in the 
increase in Federal spending to pay for people who got hit by an 
earthquake.
  That is common sense to pay as you go. This message is depressing to 
me, because it brings into question a commitment to even set up an 
emergency fund, because an emergency fund would have to set probably 1 
percent aside of the whole Federal budget. This is less than 1 percent, 
and you are saying no.
  I mean, if we are going to set up a fund, we had better be prepared 
to step up to the plate and say we want to do something that makes some 
good fiscal sense for our country.
  Support the Nussle amendment.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I would like to comment for 
just a moment in reflection of the enthusiasm of my colleague who just 
spoke.
  I cannot help but bring to the attention of the House that we find 
ourselves often stumbling over the law of unintended consequences. 
That's exactly what we are about to do here.
  The Penny-Kasich package of last year was discussed by all of us. It 
was a very close vote.
  To presume that we can now revisit that in the $9 billion Nussle-
Kasich amendment and do what was intended then is a big mistake. Often, 
unintended consequences get in the way.

                              {time}  1710

  For example, in an area that is of great concern to a lot of my 
colleagues--controlling our borders--within the proposal that is before 
us there is a cut of $45.1 million which was appropriated for the 
Border Patrol in the 1994 appropriations budget process. That would 
have filled 581 new positions on the Border Patrol. The combination of 
new and redeployed agents will result in the presence of 620 additional 
Border Patrol agents on the line. INS plans to deploy 350 new agents as 
a result of that process. Attorney General Reno intends to announce 
tomorrow an enhancement of $368 million in the same area, and $300 
million will be used to strengthen the Border Patrol.
  If the Nussle-Kasich package is implemented, the rescissions proposed 
in that package will result in at least the following additional FTE 
cuts above and beyond those already planned: FBI agents, 329 positions 
gone; DEA, 91 positions; INS, 174 positions. Because the rescission 
will come 6 months into the fiscal year, reductions-in-force will be 
impractical. In order to achieve this level of FTE reductions, the 
Justice Department will be forced to implement massive furloughs, 
resulting in disruption in the whole process regarding Border Patrol 
efforts. The Department of Justice will be unable to implement any of 
the enhancements provided for them in this Border Patrol planning.
  The whole point is that the way you implement this does the wrong 
thing in the wrong place at the wrong time. While we speak of innocuous 
cuts, this unintended consequence is anything but. This is an emergency 
bill, not a time to balance the budget.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Madam Chairman, this whole debate reminds me of something that a 
family does not do; and that is, a family, when it is presented with a 
crisis, must figure out a reprioritization of their needs. 
Unfortunately, this is not what we are doing here. What we are doing 
here reminds me of something that happens in dysfunctional families, 
and that is, we have got an alcoholic in the family and we are 
supporting that alcoholic's habit by allowing him to continue to drink. 
In fact, we are buying the liquor for him.
  What we need to do in this House today is end the codependent 
relationship with the alcoholic uncle we have got and say to him that 
the time has come for us to make the choices. The time is today to cut 
spending so that we can afford to pay for the crisis that we have got 
in California. We support that crisis aid, we want to offer it, but we 
have got to cut the uncle off of the bottle.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California, [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and all of my colleagues who 
have worked so very hard to put this supplemental appropriation 
together.
  For those of you who speak about the earthquake, you do not really 
understand the devastation. Let me point out to you that I spent 3 days 
there, 2 days at the epicenter of the earthquake where the building has 
fallen one full floor, where lives were lost, where apartment buildings 
split, where people are standing on the sidewalks with their children 
and their furniture, stunned; where hospitals are evacuated; where 
freeways are down. They are hurting.
  Some people have lost everything they have. People who thought they 
had a home, they did not have insurance, and it is gone. They have no 
place to live, and they do not understand why we in Congress would 
stand here and blow a lot of smoke about cutting the budget at this 
time when they are in crisis.
  They expect you to debate that at budget time. They do not mind a 
debate about cutting back the budget, but they really are going to 
think you are rather mean-spirited to use this crisis as a time to hold 
up an appropriation that could help them.
  I beg you not to do that. We have had some wonderful help from our 
Secretaries Cisneros and Pena, who have been out in California working 
hard; let us rise to the occasion and do what they have done, do what 
the people need desperately.
  Madam Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank the committee chairman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Nussle-
Penny-Kasich amendment.
  Madam Chairman, as chairman of the Congressional Urban Caucus, I have 
to ask my colleagues offering this amendment today one question. Why?
  Why are the majority of proposed offsets targeted at big-city 
America?
  Mass transit operating funds, transit capital grants, community 
development block grants, airport grants, vouchers for new public 
housing, and aid to assist communities with defense cutbacks and base 
closures. The list goes on.
  These are important programs. They provide job training. They provide 
housing. The transportation funds move people, goods and services, and 
employ thousands.
  The legislation we are debating today will help the city of Los 
Angeles cope the most costly tragedy America has ever experienced. This 
amendment would cripple Los Angeles' recovery even further. And it 
would send shock waves to cities across the country.
  Let's look at one example: Mass transit funding. Los Angeles has 
never been a mass transit city. The terms traffic jam and Los Angeles 
are synonyms. L.A.'s commuting times are legendary.
  Since the earthquake, people who would have been immobilized by 
damage to roads and highways, are able to move with the use of public 
transit. Ridership on L.A.'s Metrolink has grown to 30,000 additional 
riders daily. The same dependence on mass transit was seen in my city 
of Philadelphia and the entire Northeast when we froze because of the 
recent cold, snow, and ice. All cities need transit operating help, 
now, more than ever.
  So, why are the sponsors of the bill proposing to cut transit 
funding? And all the other programs that will help L.A.'s residents get 
back on their feet?
  And what good will this emergency funding really achieve if we create 
emergencies in other cities across America?
  We all want to reduce the budget deficit. But we must reduce it in a 
way that does not hurt cities like L.A. and cripple the programs that 
serve them.
  Let us reduce the budget in a thoughtful and rational manner.
  Let us pass the earthquake aid package without creating aftershocks 
in the rest of Urban America.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I think it is time to refocus this 
debate. This debate is not about whether we are going to give the 
compassionate aid which is needed in Los Angeles; it is going to 
happen. It is going to happen regardless of what happens on this 
amendment.
  The aid is going to flow.
  This amendment is about whether Congress is going to kick the habit 
of giving out aid around America for disasters and then passing the 
bill on to our children and our grandchildren. The debate on this 
amendment is about whether we are willing to stand up and finally pay 
the bill.
  For the last 5 years Congress has passed over $20 billion in disaster 
assistance, most of that paid for, but simply added to the debt.
  There is a lot of talk today about cutting spending, you hear it all 
across America, from Members of Congress, that we need to cut 
spending--until it comes time to do it. Then we can never find it. We 
can never muster up the energy or the courage to say, ``I will take my 
share of the cuts.''
  Let me remind my colleagues, Christmas is past, it is now time to pay 
the bills.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I concluded my previous remarks by asking 
for a ``yes'' vote. I did not mean that. I would like to correct that 
and ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Penny-Kasich 
amendment and commend our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 
Natcher, for his swift action and tireless effort on behalf of the 
people who are affected by this disaster.
  Madam Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on Penny-Kasich.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, this is a familiar debate. We have been down this 
road before. We have faced other disaster situations in other regions 
of the country. And time and time again we convince ourselves that the 
responsible vote is to borrow more money.
  For once, we need to challenge ourselves to do what all of America 
must do when faced with a crisis within their own family, within their 
own community; to do what all charitable groups within America do when 
there is a crisis in any part of America. And that is to pay as we go.
  In our own family budget, when a crisis hits, we tighten our belts, 
we make some choices, and we eliminate some of the niceties in our 
family budget so we can focus on the necessity of the current crisis.
  When a disaster hits in our community, we stop everything, and all of 
us join hands to fight that disaster and to help our neighbors in need. 
We make the sacrifice.
  When a hurricane hits in Florida, or an earthquake hits in 
California, or a flood hits in the Midwest, collectively, as Americans, 
we join together and provide the support needed to bring relief to 
those who are suffering.
  We send contributions to the Red Cross and to the Salvation Army and 
to the other private relief organizations. They don't rush in on a 
credit card. They rush in to help, and they challenge all of America to 
send money so we can finance the needed aid. That is the way America 
operates, but that is not the way we operate here in Washington, DC.
  Church groups all across America, including my own church, sent 
relief groups down to hurricane-stricken southern Florida. My own sons 
and I traveled there last Easter break, to spend a week helping to 
rebuild that storm-ravaged region. That is the spirit of America.
  But that is no longer the spirit that prevails here in the seat of 
our National Government. When it comes to a disaster here in America, 
we say,

       By gosh, send them the money. But don't ask me to 
     sacrifice. These programs are under my committee's 
     jurisdiction. I don't want to cut them. Let me provide aid by 
     borrowing the money. Don't tell me to sacrifice something 
     within my committee's jurisdiction.

  Or we come to the floor and say,

       These programs are important to Chicago or New York or 
     southern Minnesota or Nebraska, and I don't want to tell my 
     constituents that there is any part of the Federal budget 
     affecting my district that I am going to cut in order to 
     provide much needed assistance to a region of the country 
     that is devastated and suffering severely.

  Madam Chairman, this is nonsense to most Americans. They want to see 
real leadership. They don't want to see this kind of irresponsible 
behavior.
  Responsible leadership means making some tough choices. Borrowing 
money is never a tough choice. We found that out in the 1980's. We 
borrowed too much in the corporate sector; we borrowed too much on 
consumer debt. We borrowed ourselves into a recession. And we are now 
beginning to build back. This Government of America must strive to set 
an example for the rest of America.
  This is a small proposition. This aid package is not tremendously 
expensive in the context of a $1.5 trillion national budget, and we are 
only proposing 70 modest cuts in 70 relatively inconsequential programs 
to pay for this earthquake aid.
  This is a familiar list of cuts. We have voted on these before, and 
many we have adopted before, but they have not yet become the law of 
the land.
  In the past we have talked about these spending cuts as a way to 
reduce the deficit. Today the very least we can do is adopt these 
spending cuts as a way of avoiding an addition to the deficit.
  Madam Chairman, today is a moment of truth in many respects. The 
challenge is whether we will provide the right kind of leadership for 
America. When part of America is suffering, all of America is willing 
to share the sacrifice. Will we reflect that American spirit here on 
the floor of the House? yes or no? I think the answer should be yes. In 
order to do that, we must vote for the Nussle amendment.
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, the only way that this amendment can pass 
is if the Members of this body don't understand what they are doing. We 
have had no hearings about these cuts. We just received the most 
current, most precise, analysis of what this amendment will do.
  At a time when we are about to pass a tough crime bill, do the 
Members of this body really want to eliminate 1,493 FBI agents? Do you 
really want to cut out 1,636 Bureau of Prison guards? When we are 
trying to deal with illegal immigrants, do you really want to eliminate 
1,108 INS agents? When the American people are trying to struggle with 
a brand new tax act, brand new tax forms, do you really want to 
eliminate 7,200 Internal Revenue Service personnel? And do you really 
want to go home and explain to your veterans why you voted to 
eliminate, 13,586 people out of our VA hospitals? Do you really want to 
do that?
  You need to know what is in this bill.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, this is another example of the law of 
unintended consequences. This is a Congress that came back here to pass 
a crime bill and crack down on illegal immigration, and our first act 
is totally counterproductive. I know every Member wants to inflect cuts 
on the legislative branch to show just how far we are willing to go to 
help these victims. What do we do? If we pass this amendment, we leave 
the Senate totally unscathed. Seventy-five hundred people would have 
been cut in the Senate had the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers], been adopted. None of them will be if this Penny-Kasich-
Nussle-Condit amendment is adopted.
  So this is not what people portray it to be. It is a 
counterproductive and mistaken effort to make a gesture which I think 
is inappropriate at this time.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I want to point out the effects of this 
amendment on the legislative branch.
  Section 2401 of the amendment to the disaster supplemental rescinds 
2.8 percent of the funds appropriated in the fiscal year 1994 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, except for funds for Senate 
operations and House official mail. House mail is rescinded by $5 
million in section 2402.
  Penny-Kasich had a comparable 7.5-percent rescission, but earlier in 
the year. At this point in the budget year, the section 2401--2.8 
percent will probably equate to close to 6 percent of remaining 
balances. This assumes an early to mid-February approval of the bill by 
the President and one month to develop an employee and administrative 
cost reduction plan to achieve the $50 million savings required.


                                 impact

  There are few options in the legislative branch in making reductions 
to current operations. The resources of the legislative branch are 
basically people and the computers and other administrative machinery 
that support the staff.
  Our employees are among the lowest in average salary in Federal 
service.
  For the approximately 23,000 legislative branch staff covered by this 
amendment, and assuming an average annual salary and benefit 
compensation of $50,000, a $50 million rescission would equate to about 
2,000 staff at this time of the year--a 9 percent staffing reduction.
  A proportionate reduction allocation of 2,000 would work out to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total                
                                                approximate   Reduction 
                                                   staff       required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House staff...................................       10,000          870
Library of Congress...........................        4,800          417
General Accounting Office.....................        4,800          417
Architect of the Capitol......................        2,000          174
Capitol Police................................        1,300          113
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................       22,900        1,991
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Such a personnel reduction would be accomplished by reducing:
  Members office staff by 1 to 2 per office.
  Committees by an average 4 to 5 per committee.
  House computer personnel by 15.
  Doorkeepers, finance clerks, floor clerks, etc., by 70 plus.
  Congressional Budget Office: 20 of 220 staff.
  Office of Technology Assessment: 15 of 205.
  Congressional Research Service: 80 of 770.
  General Accounting Office: 1250 of 4,800. In GAO's case, a much 
higher proportion of staff will be effected because of the requirements 
of their employee rights regulations.
  Architect of the Capitol: 174 of 2000.
  An alternative would be a one-month furlough for each legislative 
branch employee.


                             other impacts

  Reduction in reading room hours at the Library of Congress.
  Either 100 or so depository libraries removed from program or 
significant reduction in Federal documents delivery.
  Reductions of 7 to 15 in braille and audio publications for 700,000 
books for blind and physically handicapped patrons of Library of 
Congress National Library Service.
  Other reductions and delays in resolving Federal contractor bid 
protests [GAO]: Davis-Bacon employee settlements--GAO workload; meeting 
congressional needs for CBO scorekeeping, GAO audits, CRS services to 
Members and Committees; and an unknown cutback in GPO printing of 
congressional documents such as the Congressional Record, hearings, et 
cetera; and further delays in processing copyright registrations and 
royalty payments to copyright owners.


                              section 2402

  A $5 million mail rescission will cause termination of all bulk 
mailings from Members in about the June to July timeframe. This account 
may even now be underfunded at the current appropriation level of $40 
million.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have talked a lot about the family here today. I just want to put 
this in perspective a little bit. If the family budget was compared 
with the Federal budget, what this would mean if a family faced a 
crisis, they would have to come up with two hundred bucks. You would 
say to some families, on a $30,000 joint income, two hundred bucks is a 
lot of money. But you know what? If it was an emergency, they would 
figure it out. The wouldn't go borrow two hundred bucks. They would 
figure out ways here and there to cut their own family budgets. They 
wouldn't wait until the end of the year and save it for the budgeteers. 
They would not say we are going to cut people and throw them out on the 
street. They wouldn't say their kids are not going to be able to get 
shoes and starve.
  Come on, don't be ridiculous. There is nobody out there that believes 
that for one second that this giant Federal budget cannot be cut 1 
percent to fit this in for victims of an earthquake. In an emergency.
  I think it is unconscionable to tell people from the well specifics 
that are not true, that are not in any way intended in this bill or 
even facts within the language.
  There is no way that that is the case. The budget loophole that this 
came under says that we need emergencies in order to find this kind of 
a situation where we want to spend money off budget. It is an 
emergency.
  But is this the emergency intended by the budgeteers? Is this the big 
earthquake in California? Is this the war where we are going to have to 
come up with hundreds of billions of dollars?
  No. This is an emergency that we can fit into our family budget, our 
national budget. We can tighten our belt one little loop. This is all 
it takes. And do the right thing, so we don't have to pass this on to 
our children and our grandchildren.
  The Fazio amendment is up next. It is going to cut a little bit, 
everybody is going to feel good. But let me tell you, it doesn't cut 
the mustard. We need to vote for the Nussle amendment in order to do 
the job and do the job right.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our majority 
leader, to close debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Chairman, in the past few days, there has been a 
lot of discussion about the best way to help the earthquake victims in 
southern California--how to write the legislation, how to foot the 
bill.
  But what is really important in this discussion is not the process or 
the procedures we know so well--but a kind of human tragedy that is 
hard for any of us to know.
  Imagine what it is like to work hard all your life, to save up to buy 
your own home--only to have that home slide off its foundation--and to 
know you've got to start all over again.
  Imagine what it is like to wake up one day, living a comfortable 
middle-class life--and to wake up the next day sleeping on the street, 
and carrying your belongings in a plastic bag.
  Imagine what it's like, living paycheck to paycheck, and being struck 
by a crisis that's just too big for your bank account.
  Imagine what it is like to see the roads, the highways, the 
buildings, and businesses that have been a part of your everyday life, 
crumble to the ground like a house of cards.
  And imagine what it is like for a city and a State--still mired in a 
deep, painful recession--to be dealt a devastating economic blow.
  I am not going to pretend that I know what that is like. But I feel 
very deeply for the people of Los Angeles, because my district suffered 
that kind of devastation during last year's floods--when the tides of 
disaster washed away people's homes and cars and dreams.
  I stood shoulder to shoulder with the people of Missouri, working to 
rebuild the damage caused by those floods. And there is a lot more 
rebuilding to do.
  So I know the difference that Government aid can make--giving shelter 
and food and help with the rent, while our people get back on their 
feet.
  It is not some kind of welfare. It is not even an act of charity. It 
is our profound obligation, born of extraordinary circumstance.
  I'll never forget the words of one woman in Los Angeles, who has been 
sleeping with her family in a parking lot for the past few weeks. She 
told a newspaper reporter: ``I've never asked the Government for a 
penny. We've always worked very hard. But I'm hoping now that they can 
help us.''
  When you look at the human suffering--when you look at the misery and 
tragedy caused by these disasters--and when you look at our ability to 
really help these people, to help them put their lives back together--
then all the parliamentary rules and debates just pale by comparison.
  Federal relief workers have done an outstanding job in Los Angeles--
just as they did an outstanding job in my own community.
  It is time for us to move past the discussion about earthquake aid, 
and to get the job done. It is time for us to sit down, and work out a 
solution--as quickly and as thoroughly as we can.
  And it just doesn't make sense for that solution to come from our 
regular budget. After 12 years, we finally have an economic and budget 
policy that is working for American families. We are creating jobs, 
we're reducing the deficit, and we are doing more to meet the needs of 
our people.
  The only way to keep us on that path to prosperity is by helping the 
Los Angeles area--which generates 7 percent of the entire Nation's 
gross national product--more than almost any other city in America.
  But if every dollar of disaster aid must aid matched by a dollar of 
painful cuts in day-to-day programs--beyond the tough cuts the 
President is about to propose--then we'll throw this modest recovery 
right off its course. And that certainly will not help the people of 
southern California.
  That's not to say that I'm not concerned about the money this will 
cost. I am. That's why the Speaker, the minority leader, and I have 
appointed a special bipartisan task force, to look at ways to minimize 
the financial impact of these kinds of disasters, without compromising 
the effectiveness of our Government's response.
  I think this task force will help us come up with some long-term 
answers. But we cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. 
Until we come up with a real, long-term approach that works, how can we 
treat the families of southern California any differently than the 
families of Florida, South Carolina, or the Midwest?
  So let's act with the reason and compassion we have always 
demonstrated in times of national crisis--and let us do it today.
  Let us say to the people of southern California: this is not business 
as usual. We'll help you get back on your feet. And the promise of 
America will be fulfilled.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The authors of the amendment, the gentleman from Iowa, Minnesota, 
Ohio, and California, have an admirable aim: to maintain discipline in 
the budget and prevent increases in the deficit as we provide emergency 
aid to the victims of the Los Angeles earthquake. But some of the 
spending cuts they have targeted, already authorized and appropriated 
by Congress, are ill-considered. I want bring to my colleagues' 
attention three items within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Education and Labor, which I have the honor to chair.
  First, the amendment would raise the threshold for application of the 
Davis-Bacon Act from $2,000 to $100,000. The Davis-Bacon Act, as my 
colleagues know, requires contractors to pay prevailing wages on 
Federal and federally assisted construction projects. The act ensures 
fair competition among contractors and promotes quality work by 
requiring a wage structure that encourages the use of skilled 
employees.
  So-called reform of David-Bacon is not relevant to this 
appropriations bill. The House has repeatedly opposed attempts to alter 
Davis-Bacon in the context of unrelated legislation. It has 
consistently supported legislative reform reported by the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Chairman Murphy, whose subcommittee has jurisdiction over Davis-
Bacon, and I have introduced a reform bill, H.R. 1231, which would 
raise the application threshold, but only in the context of other 
reforms that ensure that changes are carefully balanced. For example, 
our bill would prohibit contractors from dividing their contracts into 
pieces to avoid the threshold.
  H.R. 1231 is similar to bills that passed the House in recent 
Congresses. Chairman Murphy and I intend to move it.
  For these reasons, we should reject the piecemeal change proposed 
here.
  Second, the amendment would cut $150 million from the Dislocated 
Worker Assistance Program, which helps people who have permanently lost 
their jobs learn new skills and get new jobs. The Congressional Budget 
Office and the Labor Department estimate that 2.2 million Americans 
will permanently lose their jobs this year. The money that has been 
appropriated will serve only a fraction of those in need. The amendment 
proposes to cut more than 10 percent of the program this year. It is 
unfair and illogical to make one group of Americans--who also need 
their Government's help to remain productive, taxpaying citizens--pay 
for desperately needed assistance to victims of the earthquake.

  Again, this amendment would cripple our efforts to improve the 
dislocated worker program. Job training is a top priority of the 
Clinton administration this year. It is expected to be emphasized in 
the President's 1995 budget. The Labor Department has been working with 
my committee for months to reform our training programs. Yesterday, 
Secretary Reich and the President held a conference to discuss models 
of their proposed reforms from across the country. The committee looks 
forward to considering the administration's reform proposal 
encompassing those and other ideas.
  Third, the amendment would cut $110 million in federally sponsored 
university research and development. The amendment would leave it to 
the Office of Management and Budget to make the cuts from among 28 
accounts administered by agencies ranging from the National Institutes 
of Health to NASA to the Army.
  The authors of the amendment have termed this a reduction in 
overhead, or in indirect research costs. There is nothing indirect 
about the effect reductions in reimbursements would have on research 
and the institutions that undertake these projects. These are valid 
costs as determined by OMB. They cover things like the cost of lighting 
or heating a research building. If these accounts were reduced, and OMB 
already has reduced them by about $100 million annually since 1991, the 
costs will have to be recovered elsewhere--in either research cutbacks 
or tuition hikes.
  Again, this is a reduction in areas that the administration and 
Congress agree we need to promote: investment in our children's 
education and research that will increase our living standards.
  This item has grave implications for the Nation's research centers, 
including the University of Michigan, one of or leading institutions. 
The University of Michigan, which is in my district, received $253 
million in federally sponsored research in a wide range of scientific 
endeavors in fiscal 1993. No one knows what this amendment would mean 
for my school. I would like us to know what the full ramifications are 
before we act.
  It is appropriate for Congress to set a budget for Federal support 
for research and development. Let us do it by the front door, by 
letting appropriate authorities decide what projects to fund, not by 
the back door, where we make arbitrary cuts whose implications are not 
fully understood.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. SWIFT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
and in particular to take $10 million from the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. There are only two problems with this approach; it won't 
save any money, and it won't work.
  First of all, the annual payroll of the ICC is $30 million. This 
amendment would cut this by a third. To RIF one-third of the 
Commission's employees would statutorily require 90 days advance time, 
and then statutory requirements for severance pay and lump-sum annual 
leave payments. But with the fiscal year half over, by the time you 
instituted a RIF you would likely have to let all your employees go 
when the money ran out.
  Or you could offer a mix of involuntary retirement payments and 
unemployment compensation. Or you could require involuntary furloughs 
and pay out for unemployment compensation. But the end result of any of 
these approaches is that you achieve no savings and the work of 
independent agencies comes to a screeching halt.
  And that is the second point. This amendment doesn't pass on the work 
of the ICC to the Department of Transportation--as other sunset 
amendments have at least attempted to do--it just tells the last 
employee to turn out the lights as they leave.
  Ongoing cases, problems with shippers, or community concerns with 
rail abandonments, and the myriad of other day-in, day-out regulatory 
functions of the agency would stop in their tracks. That's not hard-
nosed, prudent paring of Government waste. That's irresponsible 
grandstanding. This amendment hasn't been thought through; it will not 
save money, but it will do damage to communities and shippers who 
deserve better.
  My friends, there is no free lunch; no savings, no sense in this kind 
of slash-and-burn amendment. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the son of Penny-
Kasich. As with their original amendment from last November to H.R. 
3400, Reinventing Government, this amendment is short-sighted, 
undermines the emergency process of the Budget Act and includes major 
policy changes that have not received proper scrutiny. There are a 
number of reasons to vote against Penny-Kasich.
  First of all, the Penny-Kasich cuts are too deep and are not 
equitable. Many of these, such as eliminating $150 million for the 
dislocated worker assistance program, are ill-conceived and unfair.
  Second, it represents an impractical attempt at rewriting the Federal 
budget. We have never before required offsetting cuts when making a 
supplemental appropriation for a disaster. Never--not for Andrew, not 
for Iniki, not for the Midwest floods, not for Hugo, not for Loma 
Prieta--never. To now require that we go through that exercise before 
providing assistance in this one case would be highly unfair and 
discriminatory.
  The budget we adopt after long and tortuous debate is a planning 
document. Disasters cannot be planned and we know that at the time we 
adopt the budget. We know that major disasters might happen which would 
require us, in the urgency of that situation, to spend additional 
dollars on disaster relief. We cannot, when disaster strikes, tell the 
people suffering from it that we will be sending aid just as soon as we 
redebate and refigure the entire Federal budget--look how long it takes 
us to adopt a budget in the first place. It simply is not practical to 
say we will rewrite the Federal budget before we aid anyone in a major 
disaster. This is exactly the kind of redtape runaround and delay we 
have been trying to get away from in disaster relief.
  Third, Penny-Kasich includes major policy changes that have not 
received the benefit of proper legislative scrutiny.
  This is no way to legislate. A proposal like this should not simply 
be slapped together over a weekend and then be brought up for a vote.
  It is very easy, and often very valuable, for people to throw out 
ideas for consideration without all the details worked out. However, it 
is part of the job of the Congress to work out those with no 
opportunity to measure and weigh in detail the changes it would bring, 
would, in my opinion, be an abrogation of our responsibility as 
legislators.
  Mr. Speaker, for me and many other Members, Penny-Kasich brings back 
bad memories. In 1981, the Reagan administration submitted an omnibus 
reconciliation bill. That bill was over 4,000 pages and included 
proposed savings of $43 billion. Like Penny-Kasich, it, too, involved 
complex issues; it, too, was railroaded through the Congress; and it, 
too, was not understood in terms of its ramifications. As Members may 
recall, that effort turned out to be a disaster--a disaster for the 
economy and for the legislative process.
  We don't need a repeat of that today. Vote no on Penny-Kasich--Penny-
Kasich 1 was wrong; Penny-Kasich 2 is no better.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Nussle].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 240, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--178

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Leach
     Levy
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Andrews (TX)
     Bentley
     Brooks
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Green
     Hastings
     King
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Markey
     Michel
     Murphy
     Neal (MA)
     Owens
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Shepherd
     Smith (OR)
     Washington

                              {time}  1753

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. King for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Neal of Massachusetts 
     against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-416.


                     amendment offered by mr. fazio

  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio: at the end of the bill 
     insert the following:

              ``TITLE II--RESCISSIONS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Fiscal Year 1994 
     Rescission Act''.

Chapter 1--Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
                  Administration, and Related Agencies

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                     Agricultural Research Service


                   (rescission and transfer of funds)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111 and subsequently transferred to the Human 
     Nutrition Information Service pursuant to Secretary's 
     Memorandum No. 1020-39, dated September 30, 1993, $1,000,000 
     are rescinded and the remaining funds are transferred to the 
     Agricultural Research Service: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated by Public Law 103-111 for the functions of the 
     former Human Nutrition Information Service shall be made 
     available only to the Agricultural Research Service.

                   Cooperative State Research Service


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111, $14,279,000 are rescinded, including $4,375,000 
     for contracts and grants for agricultural research under the 
     Act of August 4, 1965, as amended; $7,000,000 for competitive 
     research grants; and $2,904,000 for necessary expenses of the 
     Cooperative State Research Service.


                        building and facilities

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111, $2,897,000 are rescinded.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

                   (rescission and transfer of funds)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111 and subsequently transferred to the Agricultural 
     Cooperative Service pursuant to Secretary's Memorandum No. 
     1020-39, dated September 30, 1993, $100,000 are rescinded and 
     the remaining funds are transferred to the Rural Development 
     Administration.


                   payments to states and possessions

                          (transfer of funds)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111 and subsequently transferred to the Agriculture 
     Cooperative Service pursuant to Secretary's Memorandum No. 
     1020-39, dated September 30, 1993, $435,000 are transferred 
     to the Rural Development Administration.

                      Farmers Home Administration


              rural housing insurance fund program account

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111 for the cost of direct section 502 loans, 
     $35,000,000 are rescinded.


              rural development loan fund program account

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111 for the cost of direct loans, $20,000,000 are 
     rescinded.


                 rural water and waste disposal grants

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111, $25,000,000 are rescinded.


                         salaries and expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111, $12,167,000 are rescinded.

                       Food and Nutrition Service


                  commodity supplemental food program

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-341, $12,600,000 are rescinded.


              food donations programs for selected groups

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-341, $6,000,000 are rescinded.

                     Public Law 480 Program Account


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-111 for commodities supplied in connection with title 
     III, $20,000,000 are rescinded.

Chapter 2--Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
                          and Related Agencies

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration


                  economic development revolving fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances in the Economic Development 
     Revolving Fund, $29,000,000 are rescinded.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                              construction

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $3,000,000 are rescinded.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Administrative Provision

       For fiscal year 1994 only, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance, upon good cause shown, may waive the 
     provisions of section 504(f) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 for projects located in communities 
     covered under a Presidentially declared disaster pursuant to 
     the Robert T. Safford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                        buying power maintenance

                              (rescission)

       Of the balances in the Buying Power Maintenance account, 
     $8,800,000 are rescinded


                          new diplomatic posts

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available for the United States 
     Information Agency under this heading in Public Law 102-395, 
     $1,000,000 are rescinded.

                        Administrative Provision

       Subject to enactment of legislation authorizing the 
     Secretary of State to charge a fee or surcharge for 
     processing machine readable non-immigrant visas and machine 
     readable combined border crossing identification cards and 
     no-immigrant visas, the Secretary of State may collect not to 
     exceed $20,000,000 in additional fees or surcharges during 
     fiscal year 1994 pursuant to such authority: Provided, That 
     such additional fees shall be deposited as an offsetting 
     collection to the Department of State, Administration of 
     Foreign Affairs, ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' 
     appropriation account and such fees shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That such collections shall 
     be available only to modernize, automate, and enhance 
     consular services and counterterrorism activities of the 
     Department of State, to include the development and 
     installation of automated visa and namecheck information 
     systems, secure travel documents, worldwide 
     telecommunications systems, and management systems to permit 
     sharing of critical information regarding visa applicants and 
     help secure America's borders.

                             THE JUDICIARY

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                           defender services

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $3,000,000 are rescinded.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  Board for International Broadcasting


                          israel relay station

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading, $1,700,000 
     are rescinded.

                    United States Information Agency


                         salaries and expenses

                         (including rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $1,177,000 are rescinded.
       Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other Act, 
     not to exceed $2,000,000 of the funds made available under 
     this heading in Public Law 103-121 may be used to carry out 
     projects involving security construction and related 
     improvements for Agency facilities not physically located 
     together with Department of State facilities abroad: 
     Provided, That such funds may remain available until 
     expended.


               educational and cultural exchange programs

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $850,000 are rescinded.


                           radio construction

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $2,000,000 are rescinded.

                Chapter 3--Energy and Water Development

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


                         general investigations

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available this heading in Public Law 
     102-377 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $24,970,000 are rescinded.


                         construction, general

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-377 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $97,319,000 are rescinded.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                          construction program

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-377 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $16,000,000 are rescinded.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

           Energy Supply, Research and Development Activites


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-126, $97,300,000 are rescinded: Provided, That the 
     reduction shall be taken as a general reduction, applied to 
     each program equally, so as not to eliminate or 
     disproportionately reduce any program, project, or activity 
     in the Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities 
     account as included in the reports accompanying Public Law 
     103-126.

                Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-377 and prior years' Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Acts, $42,000,000 are rescinded.

 Chapter 4--Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Agencies

                    MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  International Financial Institutions

          internatonal bank for reconstruction and development


                              (rescission)

       Of the unexpended or unobligated balances made available 
     for payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development for the United States share of the paid-in share 
     portion of the increases in capital stock for the General 
     Capital Increase, $27,910,500 is rescinded.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       Notwithstanding Public Law 103-87, the United States 
     Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to 
     the callable capital portion of the United States share of 
     the increases in capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $902,439,500.


          contribution to the inter-american development bank

                              (rescission)

       Of the unexpended or unobligated balances made available 
     for payment to the Inter-American Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for the paid-in share portion of 
     the United States share of the increase in capital stock 
     $16,063,134 is rescinded.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       Notwithstanding Public Law 103-87, the United States 
     Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank may subscribe 
     without fiscal year limitation to the callable capital 
     portion of the United States share of the increases in 
     capital stock in an amount not to exceed $1,563,875,725.


               contribution to the asian development bank

                              (rescission)

       Of the unexpended or unobligated balances made available 
     for payment to the Asian Development Bank by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, for the paid-in share portion of the United 
     States share of the increase in capital stock $13,026,366 is 
     rescinded.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       Notwithstanding Public Law 103-87, the United States 
     Governor of the Asian Development Bank may not subscribe in 
     fiscal year 1994 to the callable capital portion of the 
     United States share of any increases in capital stock.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  Agency for International Development


                         development assistance

                              (rescission)

       Of the unexpended or unobligated balances (including 
     earmarked funds) made available for fiscal years 1987 through 
     1993 to carry out the provisions of sections 103 through 106 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     $160,000,000 is rescinded: Provided, That funds rescinded 
     under this paragraph are to be derived from the following 
     countries in the following amounts: Guatemala, $8,000,000; 
     Honduras, $5,000,000; India, $10,000,000; Indonesia, 
     $15,000,000; Morocco, $10,000,000; Pakistan, $15,000,000; 
     Peru, $5,000,000; Philippines, $10,000,000; Thailand, 
     $10,000,000; and Yemen, $5,000,000: Provided further, That 
     $10,000,000 of the funds rescinded under this paragraph are 
     to be derived from non- country specific, centrally funded 
     activities: Provided further, That $57,000,000 of the funds 
     rescinded under this paragraph are to be derived from prior 
     year deobligated funds.


                         economic support fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unexpended or unobligated balances of funds 
     (including earmarked funds) made available for fiscal years 
     1987 through 1993 to carry out the provisions of chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     $90,000,000 is rescinded: Provided, That funds rescinded 
     under this paragraph are to be derived from the following 
     countries in the following amounts: Kenya, $2,000,000; 
     Liberia, $797,000; Oman, $18,000,000; Peru, $11,000,000; 
     Philippines, $10,200,000; and Somalia, $3,003,000: Provided 
     further, That $45,000,000 of the funds rescinded under this 
     paragraph are to be derived from the Private Sector Power 
     Project (No. 391-0494) for Pakistan.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                   foreign military financing program

                              (rescission)

       Of the grant funds made available (including earmarked 
     funds) under this heading in Public Law 102-391 and prior 
     appropriations Acts, $66,000,000 is rescinded: Provided, That 
     funds rescinded under this paragraph are to be derived from 
     the following countries in the following amounts: Benin, 
     $3,000; Cameroon, $161,000; Central African Republic, 
     $59,000; Congo, $7,000; Cote D'Ivoire, $128,000; Equatorial 
     Guinea, $86,000; Gabon, $3,000; Ghana, $600,000; Guatemala, 
     $1,563,000; Guinea, $499,000; Kenya, $9,000,000; Liberia, 
     $15,000; Madagascar, $505,000; Mali, $3,000; Malawi, 
     $326,000; Mauritania, $300,000; Morocco, $8,000,000; 
     Organization of American States, $6,000; Oman, $3,100,000; 
     Pakistan, $8,108,000; Peru, $6,533,000; Philippines, 
     $5,000,000; Rwanda, $250,000; Sao Tome & Principe, $228,000; 
     Somalia, $4,349,000; Sudan, $8,609,000; Thailand, $1,384,000; 
     Togo, $19,000; Tunisia, $4,100,000; Uganda, $100,000; Yemen, 
     $2,241,000; Zambia, $100,000; Zaire, $455,000; and Zimbabwe, 
     $160,000.

       Chapter 5--Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


                    construction and anadromous fish

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 
     100-466 and Public Law 102-154, $3,874,000 are rescinded.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


                       biomass energy development

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds available under this head, $16,275,000 are 
     rescinded.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Section 303 of Public Law 97-257, as amended, is repealed.
       The seventh proviso under the head ``Clean Coal 
     Technology'' in Public Law 101-512, and the seventh proviso 
     under the head ``Clean Coal Technology'' in Public Law 102-
     154, both concerning Federal employment, are repealed.

Chapter 6--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, 
                          and Related Agencies

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts appropriated in Public Law 103-112 for 
     salaries and expenses and administrative costs of the 
     Department of Labor, $4,000,000 are rescinded.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts appropriated in Public Law 103-112 for 
     salaries and expenses and administrative costs of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services (except the Social 
     Security Administration), $37,500,000 are rescinded.

                     Social Security Administration


                  supplemental security income program

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts appropriated in the first paragraph under 
     this heading in Public Law 103-112, $10,909,000 are 
     rescinded.


                 limitation on administrative expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-112 to invest in a state-of-the-art computing 
     network, $80,000,000 are rescinded.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                        Departmental Management


                         program administration

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts appropriated under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-112 for salaries and expenses and administrative 
     costs of the Department of Education, $8,500,000 are 
     rescinded.

                     Chapter 7--Legistlative Branch

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 101-520, $633,000 are rescinded in the amounts specified 
     for the following headings and accounts:
       ``Allowances and expenses'', $633,000, as follows:
       ``Official Expenses of Members'', $128,000; ``supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims'', 
     $125,000; ``net expenses of purchase, lease and maintenance 
     of office equipment'', $364,000; and ``Government 
     contributions to employees' life insurance fund, retirement 
     funds, Social Security fund, Medicare fund, health benefits 
     fund, and worker's and unemployment compensation'', $16,000.
       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-90 $2,352,000 are rescinded in the amounts specified 
     for the following headings and accounts:
       ``house leadership offices'', $253,000; ``committee on the 
     budget (studies)'', $4,000; ``standing committees, special 
     and select'', $378,000;
       ``allowances and expenses'', $943,000, as follows:
       ``Official Expenses of Members'', $876,000; and 
     ``stenographic reporting of committee hearings'', $67,000; 
     ``committee on appropriations (studies and investigations)'', 
     $595,000;
       ``salaries, officers and employees'', $179,000, as follows:
       ``Office of the Postmaster'', $19,000; ``for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Historian'', $26,000; ``the 
     House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and the 
     Democratic Caucus'', $73,000; and ``the House Republican 
     Conference'', $61,000.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds


                           capitol buildings

                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-392 and Public Law 103-69, $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, 
     respectively, both made available until expended, are 
     rescinded: Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol shall 
     be considered the agency for purposes of the election in 
     section 801(b)(2)(B) of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act and the head of the agency for purposes of 
     subsection (b)(2)(C) of such section.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-69 and Public Law 98-396, $900,000 are rescinded.

                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-69, $1,300,000 are rescinded.

               Chapter 8--Department of Defense-Military

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION


                             (rescissions)

       Of the funds appropriated under Public Law 103-110, the 
     following funds are hereby rescinded from the following 
     accounts in the specified amounts:
       Military Construction, Army, $22,319,000;
       Military Construction, Navy, $13,969,000;
       Military Construction, Air Force, $24,787,000;
       Military Construction, Defense-Wide, $13,663,000;
       Military Construction, Army National Guard, $7,568,000;
       Military Construction, Air National Guard, $6,187,000;
       Military Construction, Army Reserve, $2,551,000;
       Military Construction, Naval Reserve, $626,000;
       Military Construction, Air Force Reserve, $1,862,000;
       North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure, 
     $70,000,000; and
       Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III, 
     $437,692,000:

     Provided, That, within funds available for ``Base Realignment 
     and Closure Account, Part III'' for fiscal year 1994, not 
     less than $200,000,000 shall be available solely for 
     environmental restoration.

      Chapter 9--Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       The funds provided for ``Small community air service'' 
     under section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as 
     amended, in excess of the funds made available for obligation 
     in Public Law 103-122 are rescinded.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds provided under this heading in Public Law 102-
     368, $5,000,000 are rescinded.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds provided under this heading in Public Law 102-
     368, $2,000,000 are rescinded.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-122, $750,000 are rescinded.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the available balances (including earmarked funds) under 
     this heading, $29,451,111 are rescinded.

                       Grants-In-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds provided under the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, for grants-in-aid for 
     airport planning and development and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs, $488,200,000 of the amount in excess 
     of the funds made available for obligation in Public Law 103-
     122 are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available for specific highway projects 
     that are not yet under construction, $85,774,222 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That no funds shall be rescinded from 
     any emergency relief project funded under section 125 of 
     title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That for the 
     purposes of this paragraph, a project shall be deemed to 
     be not under construction unless a construction contract 
     for physical construction has been awarded by the State, 
     municipality, or other contracting authority.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law 
     102-388, $3,476,000 are rescinded.
       Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law 
     101-516, $1,075,000 are rescinded.
       Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law 
     101-164, $2,505,000 are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                          Discretionary Grants


                          (highway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Any unobligated balances of funds made available for fiscal 
     year 1991 and prior fiscal years under section 3 of the 
     Federal Transit Act, as amended, and allocated to specific 
     projects for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of 
     buses and related equipment, for construction of bus-related 
     facilities, and for new fixed guideway systems are rescinded: 
     Provided, That no funds provided for the Miami Metromover 
     project shall be rescinded: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided under this heading in Public Law 103-122, 
     $2,500,000 are rescinded.

      Chapter 10--Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


                         federal buildings fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-123, $126,022,000, are rescinded and are not 
     available in fiscal year 1994: Provided, That no individual 
     prospectus-level new construction project may be reduced by 
     more than 5 percent.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

       Section 630 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-393), and 
     the amendment made by that section, are repealed.

   Chapter 11--Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
                 Development, and Independent Agencies

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                      Departmental Administration


                      construction, major projects

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $26,000,000 are rescinded.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs


   homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere grants (hope 
                                grants)

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-389 and Public Law 102-139, $66,000,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That of the foregoing amount, 
     $34,000,000 shall be deducted from the amounts earmarked for 
     the HOPE for Public and Indian Housing Homeownership Program 
     and $32,000,000 shall be deducted from the amounts earmarked 
     for the HOPE for Homeownership of Multifamily Units Program.


               annual contributions for assisted housing

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-389 and prior years, and earmarked for amendments to 
     section 8 contracts other than contracts for projects 
     developed under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, 
     $25,000,000 are rescinded.


   assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 subsidy contracts

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-389 and prior years, $20,000,000 are rescinded.


                        administrative provision

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the City of 
     Slidell, Louisiana, is authorized to submit not later than 10 
     days following the enactment of this Act, and the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development shall consider, the final 
     statement of community development objectives and projected 
     use of funds required by section 104(a)(1) of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(a)(1)) in 
     connection with a grant to the City of Slidell under title I 
     of such Act for fiscal year 1994.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Environmental Protection Agency


               water infrastructure/state revolving funds

                    (including rescission of funds)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $22,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That the 
     $500,000,000 earmarked under this heading in Public Law 103-
     124 to not become available until May 31, 1994, shall instead 
     not become available until September 30, 1994.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


              emergency management planning and assistance

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $2,000,000 are rescinded.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                        research and development

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $25,000,000 are rescinded.


                       construction of facilities

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $25,000,000 are rescinded.

                      National Science Foundation


                    academic research infrastructure

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                      National Service Initiative


               corporation for national community service

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $5,000,000 are rescinded.

                   Executive Office of the President


                office of science and technology policy

       The proviso under this heading in Public Law 103-124 is 
     repealed.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Fazio], and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
McDade] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, we have had a long debate on this. I think 
the next amendment that I intended to offer would be broadly supported 
on both sides of the aisle, and I would like to engage my Republican 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], in a 
discussion of how much time we may need to debate this issue.
  Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, let me say to my friend that in my 
opinion what we ought to do is to accept this and then move to the 
recommittal motion, and we ought to do it as quickly as we can for the 
convenience of the House. That is my opinion.
  Mr. FAZIO. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I only have one 
request for a colloquy on our side that is not related to the merits of 
the passage of the bill. Does the gentleman have others who wish to 
speak?
  Mr. McDADE. I would say to my friend the mood of the committee on 
this side is to move this amendment and be done with it. If the 
gentleman has a colloquy in which to engage, move to the colloquy and 
we will yield back our time and vote.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, it is with reluctance that I offer this 
amendment today, not because the $2.5 billion in cuts I am offering are 
not important--I support them--but because I think it is inappropriate 
to be debating deficits at a time of national emergency.


                it's not the time to debate the deficit

  People are hurting in Los Angeles as a result of the Northridge 
earthquake: 57 people died; 6,500 were injured; 25,000 homes have been 
destroyed or severely damaged, another 29,000 homes received minor 
damage; 100 public schools were severely damaged along with many other 
important public facilities, including miles of freeways and roads. 
Nearly 230,000 people have applied for disaster assistance. And, the 
Los Angeles area is still suffering from major aftershocks which have 
caused further damage.
  In the face of this crisis, try telling the people of Los Angeles 
that you want to debate the deficit today.
  Tell it to the thousands of families--mothers, fathers, children, 
grandparents--who lost one of the most basic necessities of life--a 
roof over their heads.
  Go to the tent parks in Los Angeles and tell them you want to debate 
the deficit today.
  Go to the unemployment offices and tell it to the additional 10,000 
workers who filed for unemployment in Los Angeles last week.
  Go to the school yards and tell the children who lost their homes and 
classrooms and whose parents are standing in food lines. Tell them you 
want to debate the deficit today.
  How can we reduce this debate to a question of deficit numbers when 
human suffering and tragedy are unfolding before our eyes?
  The Constitution clearly states that ``Congress shall have power * * 
* to borrow money on the credit of the United States.'' This borrowing 
authority was granted by our Founding Fathers precisely to respond to 
national emergencies, such as the Los Angeles earthquake, the Midwest 
floods, and the Florida and Hawaii hurricanes.
  This is not the time to debate the budget deficit.


                 deficit already cut, more cuts to come

  The fact of the matter is we have an annual budget process to follow 
in this body which is where we deal with the deficit. What's ore, we 
already passed the largest deficit reduction plan in our Nation's 
history last year and it is working. Clearly, we need to do more, but 
the deficit is going down.
  The projected deficit for fiscal year 1995 will be $180 billion, 40 
percent lower than originally projected, and the lowest deficit in 5 
years.

  Next week, President Clinton will present the fiscal year 1995 budget 
which will eliminate 100 specific programs and make specific cuts in 
300 additional areas. This President and this Congress are addressing 
the deficit in a constructive and very real way. And the markets are 
responding with the lowest interest rates in modern history.


                      don't single out california

  It is unfortunate that the citizens of southern California must be 
held hostage to a budget debate here in Congress at a time when their 
needs are the greatest.
  California is only asking to have its emergency treated like all 
others that came before the Northridge earthquake. This Congress and 
this country responded to the real human crises that resulted from 
major natural disasters in the past. Seven times in the last 16 years 
Congress has passed emergency appropriations bills in response to major 
disasters. All of these bills have been off-budget and without offsets. 
We cannot and should not try to balance the budget on the backs of the 
people who are hurting in California.


                 penny-kasich hurts the most vulnerable

  It is extremely disconcerting that we are having this debate today. 
But even more disconcerting is how the Penny-Kasich amendment proposes 
to pay for the emergency assistance for Los Angeles. Penny-Kasich would 
take money from veterans medicine and surgical supplies. It cuts Social 
Security and Medicare. It cuts funding for dislocated workers. In 
short, Penny-Kasich attacks programs that help many of the most 
vulnerable people in society to pay for disaster assistance for people 
who are also vulnerable.
  Further, Penny-Kasich would cut highway funding, housing funding, and 
economic development funding in other parts of the country to help 
those who are hurting in Los Angeles. In essence, the Penny-Kasich 
amendment simply robs Peter to pay Paul. It just doesn't make sense.


                   fazio amendment as the alternative

  Today I am offering an amendment that will offset $2.5 billion of 
this emergency spending package. I present this amendment as the only 
responsible effort to offset the costs. My amendment is identical to 
the rescission package this House adopted last year, by a 429 to 1 
vote, as part of the reinventing government bill (H.R. 3400). The 
Senate has never acted on this proposal so the rescission savings are 
still available to be captured.
  Unlikely Penny-Kasich, though, my amendment does not hurt veterans or 
Social Security recipients. It does not cut highway and housing 
programs in other parts of the country to pay for highway and housing 
programs in Los Angeles. Rather, this amendment contains $2.5 billion 
in real spending cuts which have been carefully considered by the 
Appropriations Committee and which have been overwhelmingly approved by 
the House.

  I would also point out to my colleagues that on Monday, President 
Clinton will present his fiscal year 1995 budget which will include 
another $5 billion in fiscal year 1994 rescissions. We all know that 
the Appropriations Committee has a long history of exceeding all 
Presidential rescission requests. Therefore, it is safe to assume that 
as part of the fiscal year 1995 appropriations process, this Congress 
will rescind more than $5 billion in fiscal year 1994 funds.
  Coupled with my amendment, that will bring total fiscal year 1994 
rescissions to over $7.5 billion. So I encourage my colleagues to take 
this into consideration.


                             for the future

  Clearly, Congress and the country need to enter into a constructive 
debate about how we should respond to disasters in the future. We 
should develop a disaster response policy that sets up a separate 
account to deal with such emergencies and will enable us to address the 
critical needs of Americans during a crisis without having to resort to 
this acrimonious debate time after time.
  But, we should not try to debate this policy in the middle of an 
emergency, nor use this disaster assistance legislation today as a 
vehicle for Members' pet initiatives. We should not use this bill to 
debate immigration policy or Davis-Bacon reform or to debate the 
deficit.
  It is time to help the people of Los Angeles and to respond to their 
needs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Fazio amendment. Let's not do 
harm to others as we try to help the citizens of Los Angeles. Let us 
concentrate on the crisis at hand and debate these other issues in a 
more appropriate forum. Support the Fazio amendment and pass this 
emergency relief bill now.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher].
  Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, This amendment would have the effect of 
including rescissions in this bill that were already approved by the 
House last November. The origin of these rescissions is H.R. 3511, that 
was reported by the Committee on Appropriations last November. The 
amount of these specific rescissions is $2.5 billion in nearly all 
areas of Government. We recommended them to the House at that time, and 
we do so again.
  Including these rescissions in this bill will help move action in 
deficit reduction along. We will be able to conference these 
rescissions with the Senate and include them in this emergency bill 
that needs to be enacted quickly.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for purposes of engaging in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman from Ohio please yield 
for a question?
  Mr. STOKES. Yes; I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chairman, on August 6, 1993, Petersburg, VA, the 
second most fiscally stressed city in the State, was hit by a series of 
tornadoes. Two sections of the city critical to its economy were the 
hardest hit, Old Towne and Pocahontas Island.
  The city had commenced its effort to revitalize its tax base by 
purchasing property in Old Towne.
  In addition, the city had acquired property on Pocahontas Island as a 
beginning step to stabilize the area. Pocahontas Island was originally 
settled by free blacks before the Civil War. These early residents of 
the island were a vital link in the Underground Railroad.
  Recognizing the revenue potential of Old Towne and Pocahontas Island, 
the city had invested nearly $9.2 million over the past 5 years to 
improve these areas. On August 31, 1993, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency denied the Governor's request for disaster area 
designation. Following a reconsideration request, President Clinton 
granted a major disaster declaration on December 22, 1993, for 
individual assistance only. Unfortunately, there are no Federal 
provisions for assisting commercial areas.
  City officials in Petersburg estimate conservatively that the 
cleanup, restoration, and rehabilitation of Old Towne and Pocahontas 
Island will cost the city $3.35 million, 7\1/2\ percent of the city's 
$44.7 million operating budget. Los Angeles County estimates that its 
ultimate disaster-associated costs will total 6.3 percent of its budget 
and Los Angeles City estimates that the costs will equal 5.5 percent of 
its budget.
  The impact of the disaster on the economy of Petersburg while lesser 
in dollar amount is no less significant on the economy of the 
jurisdiction than the earthquake on the financial condition of Los 
Angeles. Both areas need Federal assistance to overcome the disaster.
  Assuming that the President and FEMA approve the request, are there 
sufficient funds to cover the eligible activities?
  Mr. STOKES. In answer to the gentleman's question, at this time, 
there is sufficient funding in FEMA's disaster relief fund for other 
disasters.
  Currently, $700 million remains unallocated for the disaster relief 
fund and available for disaster assistance.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the colloquy.
  Mr. TORRES. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the bill H.R. 
3759 which provides emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster 
assistance for the victims of the recent Los Angeles earthquake, and I 
rise in support of the Fazio amendment.
  As a Californian who has lived through and endured the earthquakes 
that have rocked my beautiful State, I cannot fully express how 
important disaster assistance truly is.
  Our Nation has truly been tested in the last several years--from 
torrential floods in the Midwest, devastating hurricanes that have hit 
the east coast, Hawaii, and our Territories, to the fire storms that 
have raged through both northern and southern California. All of these 
disasters required emergency assistance and the quick response of FEMA. 
Our response to the Los Angeles earthquake should not be treated any 
differently from these other disasters. Our response should be quick 
and it should be compassionate for all of those affected.
  We have sent emergency aid all over the world. We have relieved 
famine to feed the starving. We have provided clothes and shelter to 
those whose homes have been destroyed either by nature or by war. We 
have healed the sick and mended the broken. We sent $10 billion to aid 
Russia in its efforts to bolster its economy and move toward democracy. 
We have done all these things for so many others. We should not, we 
cannot, do any less for the people of Los Angeles County.
  It is disconcerting to me that some have chosen to exploit this 
moment of tragedy for political gain by immigrant-bashing. This is not 
the time or the place to try to fix our Nation's immigration problems. 
Concerns about immigration control are best dealt with through the 
Nation's immigration policy--not through tinkering with disaster relief 
in this appropriations bill.
  To come together over this crisis to achieve what should be our 
common goal--relief for the people of the area of Los Angeles--I 
offered a compromise amendment in the Appropriations Committee that was 
adopted and supported by a vast majority of members on both sides of 
the aisle.
  In a time of crisis, we should not be adding layers of bureaucracy to 
a process which requires the utmost speed and efficiency. My amendment 
to this bill does not intend to create any such obstacles which could 
slow down Federal relief effort and cause discrimination against people 
who, for whatever reason, cannot come up with any documents. Let me 
state unequivocally that there is no immigration verification 
requirement imposed upon FEMA as a result of this legislation.
  Indeed, in the interest of fairness, any eligibility verification 
procedure must be applied equally to all persons applying for 
assistance. Nothing in the amendment should be construed as authorizing 
any procedure that has the intent or effect of discriminating against 
persons suspected of being ineligible for services. I expect vigorous 
oversight and monitoring and immediate rectification of any 
discriminatory procedures that may mistakenly result from this 
legislation. That is the only way to avoid discriminatory treatment.
  Any procedures adopted pursuant to this amendment must be in strict 
compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 
requires that all federally funded services be made available on a 
nondiscriminatory basis.
  We intend, with this amendment, not to deny emergency assistance to 
anyone who needs food, water, shelter, medical assistance, or other 
basic needs. The amendment does, however, place an immigration 
restriction for certain long-term services, consistent with other 
immigration restrictions which are already in the law.
  Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States have a proud history of 
opening up our hearts to the victims of disasters everywhere. With this 
bill we will again open up our hearts and extend a helping hand to the 
people of Los Angeles. I urge my colleagues to support this emergency 
assistance bill.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 2, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--2

     Brewster
     Goodling
       

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Andrews (TX)
     Bentley
     Brooks
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Green
     Hastings
     Johnston
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Markey
     Michel
     Murphy
     Owens
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Shepherd
     Smith (OR)
     Torres
     Vento
     Washington

                              {time}  1820

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments before the House?
  Does the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] wish to offer his 
amendment?
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I will not be offering my amendment at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, no further amendments being in order, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Moakley) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Kennelly, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3579) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 336, she reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           motion to recommit offered by mr. myers of indiana

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, without the rescissions, I am 
opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. MYERS moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3759, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back 
     the same forthwith to the House with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill:
       (1) Insert the text of H.R. 3511, as reported by the 
     Committee on Appropriations, making rescissions of $2.561 
     billion: and
       (2) insert at the end thereof the following new sections:

     SEC.   . RESCISSION OF FUNDS CONNECTED WITH REDUCTION IN FULL 
                   TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS.

       Of the aggregate funds made available to executive 
     departments and agencies in appropriations Acts for fiscal 
     year 1994 for purposes of employee compensation, with the 
     exception of the Department of Defense, $750,000,000 is 
     rescinded. The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall allocate such rescission among the appropriate 
     accounts and shall submit to the Congress a report setting 
     forth such allocation;

     SEC.   . REDUCTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) Budget Obligations.--
       (1) In general.--The amount obligated by all departments 
     and agencies, with the exception of the Department of 
     Defense, for expenses during fiscal year 1994 shall be 
     reduced by an amount sufficient to result in a reduction of 
     $3,200,000,000 in outlays for expenses during fiscal year 
     1994. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall establish obligation limits for each agency and 
     department in order to carry out the provision of this 
     section.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term 
     ``expenses'' means the object classes identified by the 
     Office of Management and Budget in Object Classes 21-26 as 
     follows:
       (1) 21.0: Travel and Transportation of Persons.
       (2) 22.0: Transportation of Things.
       (3) 23.2: Rental Payments to Others.
       (4) 23.3: Communications, Utilities, and Misc.
       (5) 24.0: Printing and Reproduction.
       (6) 25.1: Consulting Services.
       (7) 25.2: Other Services.
       (8) 26.0: Supplies and Materials.

     SEC.   . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT.

       The unobligated balance of the funds in the SPR petroleum 
     account on the date of the enactment of this Act is 
     rescinded.

     SEC.   . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       Of the funds in the National Fertilizer and Environmental 
     Research Center account of the Tennessee Valley Authority, 
     $10,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC.   . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Legal 
     Services Corporation--Payment to the Legal Services 
     Corporation'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-121), $20,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC.   . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR BATF.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--Salaries and Expenses'' in the 
     Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-123), $2,000,000 is 
     rescinded.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Community 
     Planning and Development--Community Development Grants'' in 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
     Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-124) for grants, $400,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR MK-19 GRENADE LAUNCHER 
                   PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Procurement 
     of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
     139), $15,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the MK-19 
     Grenade Launcher Program.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR NOAA RESEARCH FLEET.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' in the Departments 
     of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. 103-121), $17,000,000 
     is rescinded.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR EDA.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``Economic 
     Development Administration--Economic Development Assistance 
     Programs'' in the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, 
     the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-121), $25,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE FRANKING.

       Of the funds made available under the heading ``House of 
     Representatives--Salaries and Expenses'' in the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-69), $2,000,000 
     is rescinded, to be derived from ``Official Mail Costs''.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR WORLD BANK.

       Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development'' in the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 
     (Pub. L. 103-87), $25,000,000 is rescinded.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR AIRWAY SCIENCE PROGRAM.

       FAA Facilities and Equipment--Of the unobligated balance of 
     funds made available under the heading ``Federal Aviation 
     Administration--Facilities and Equipment'' in appropriations 
     Acts for fiscal year 1994 and prior fiscal years, $13,000,000 
     is rescinded, to be derived from the airway science program.

     SEC.  . RESCISSION OF CERTAIN DEFENSE ADD-ONS.

       (a) Military Construction.--Of the funds made available 
     under the heading ``Military Construction, Army Reserve'' in 
     the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-110), $15,000,000 is rescinded, to be derived from the 
     Georgia-Fort McPherson Command Headquarters, Phase I, 
     project.
       (b) Defense Procurement.--Of the funds made available in 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-139), the following amounts are rescinded from the 
     following accounts and programs:
       (1) ``Other Procurement, Army'': $15,000,000 to be derived 
     from common hardware and software.
       (2) ``Other Procurement, Navy'': $30,000,000 to be derived 
     from spare and repair parts.
       (3) ``Other Procurement, Navy'': $12,000,000 to be derived 
     from weapons range support equipment.
       (4) ``Other Procurement, Army'': $10,000,000 to be derived 
     from tactical trailers/dolly sets.
       (5) ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'': $50,000,000 to 
     be derived from advance procurement of LHD-7.

     SEC.   . RESCISSION OF FUNDS FOR LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

       (a) In General.--The funds made available for each account 
     in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1994 (Pub. L. 
     103-69), are rescinded by 1.3 percent of such funds.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the language in my motion to 
recommit is identical to the Myers amendment offered earlier this 
afternoon. We adequately discussed it then, and it was debated. 
Therefore, I shall take no more time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for an aye vote on the motion to recommit. The 
Members have been here for a long time today, and I appreciate the 
earlier vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit with instructions. We have already defeated this rescission 
proposal once today. It would make major reductions with significant 
impacts. Vote no on this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 228, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 12]

                               AYES--184

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Andrews (TX)
     Bentley
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Green
     Hastings
     Johnston
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Manton
     Markey
     Michel
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Owens
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Shepherd
     Smith (OR)
     Washington

                              {time}  1843

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Manton against.

  Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GALLEGLY and Mr. HOAGLAND changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 337, 
noes 74, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               AYES--337

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--74

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Crapo
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Frank (MA)
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Grams
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hoke
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     McInnis
     Mica
     Myers
     Orton
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Portman
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Rowland
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Taylor (NC)
     Velazquez
     Walker
     Weldon
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Andrews (TX)
     Bentley
     Brown (CA)
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Gilman
     Green
     Hastings
     Johnston
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Manton
     Markey
     Michel
     Murphy
     Owens
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Shepherd
     Smith (OR)
     Washington

                              {time}  1852

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon 
     against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Crane against.

  Mr. McINNIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________