[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 218, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 
                      THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting 
forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal 
years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                motion to instruct offered by mr. kasich

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kasich moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     to the conference on the disagreeing votes on H. Con. Res. 
     218, be instructed to agree to the Senate amendment 
     reflecting a $26 billion reduction in the deficit over five 
     years by agreeing to reduce the total spending levels 
     specified in section 2(2) and 2(3) of the House-passed 
     resolution as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995--$4.4 billion in budget authority and $1.6 
     billion in outlays;
       Fiscal year 1996--$4.9 billion in budget authority and $1.5 
     billion in outlays;
       Fiscal year 1997--$5.8 billion in budget authority and $4 
     billion in outlays;
       Fiscal year 1998--$9.9 billion in budget authority and $7 
     billion in outlays; and
       Fiscal year 1999--$21.8 billion in budget authority and 
     $9.9 billion in outlays.
       Provided further, That conferees be instructed to agree to 
     that portion of section 50 of the Senate amendment which 
     provides that ``If the President's defense budget request is 
     approved, since 1985 real defense spending will have been 
     reduced by 45 percent by 1999; and President Clinton, during 
     his State of the Union Address on January 25, 1994, promised 
     no further cuts in defense spending'' and therefore insist 
     that no further cuts be made in defense by agreeing to the 
     highest possible level of funding for defense (within the 
     scope of the conference).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is 
reorganized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, we are facing a very important vote again here. In 
fact, it is the last opportunity the House will have for deficit 
reduction this year. Because of the nature of the rules of this House, 
as many of my colleagues know, if we cut spending out of discretionary 
spending later in the year, those cuts do not reduce the deficit. So 
this is the last opportunity, the last train leaving the station in 
order to reduce the deficit, in order to cut Federal spending.
  This motion I am offering, but also working in concert with the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  This proposal, which endeavors to cut defense, which has been voted 
on already in the Senate, which has passed the Senate, imposes another 
$26 billion in deficit reduction.

                              {time}  1540

  It would be the first additional deficit reduction proposal that 
would be enacted since the President raised taxes in this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, what we do is we are asking the House conferees to cut 
this spending by $26 billion over 5 years. That represents 0.3 percent 
of Federal spending over the next 5 years. If Members would focus their 
attention on this chart, they will see that the big orange ball 
represents total Federal spending. There is a sliver in there. It is 
very difficult to see that sliver. In fact, I have in my hand a 
magnifying glass that I need to look very closely in order to see how 
much spending is done.
  This is a magnifying glass, I say, because I am sure the Members 
cannot see that sliver of spending cuts on this chart. We do need a 
magnifying glass in order to see the spending cuts that will occur 
under this proposal.
  Aside from that, let us look at it graphically another way. This 
represents total Federal spending over the next 5 years, well over $8 
trillion. If we compare now much Federal spending will occur over the 
next 5 years with this sliver of a cut, as Members can see by putting 
the rules up there, frankly, we need a magnifying glass in order to see 
the difference between what Federal spending will do without the 
Grassley-Exon cuts and what it will do with them.
  Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity in this House to finally try to 
cut some spending. Every time we come to the floor to cut spending, we 
hear a litany of reasons why we should not do it.
  ``We should not cut now, we ought to cut later,'' reason No. 1.
  Reason No. 2, ``The proposal is not specific enough.''
  Reason No. 3 to reject spending cuts, ``The proposal is too specific. 
Therefore, we should not adopt it.''
  The fourth reason why we should not do it, ``We cannot cut spending. 
We have to use the savings to fix the health care problem in this 
country.''
  Reason No. 5, ``We are not cutting entitlements.''
  Reason No. 6, ``Why are you cutting entitlements?''
  Reason No. 7, ``You do not need to cut the deficit in good times.''
  Reason No. 8, ``Well, you cannot in good conscience cut the deficit 
in bad times.''
  In other words, every time an effort is made on this House floor to 
reduce spending, whether it is the Penny-Kasich bill that cut a penny 
out of a dollar, or whether it is the Exon-Grassley motion to instruct 
conferees, where we are making the smallest sliver of cuts in Federal 
spending, this House figures out or brings every ghost and goblin and 
every strawman it can conjure in its imagination to this House floor to 
scare Members into voting no.
  I would say to the Members of this House, when the American people 
get the message that this House is not capable of cutting one red cent 
from any program under any circumstance in any condition, they are 
going to feel their outrage. What I say to the Members of this House 
is, come to this House floor. Instruct conferees to agree with the 
Senate, and let us just do the smallest bit of down payment to reduce 
the national debt and the growing Federal deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that 18 organizations--and 
the millions of individuals they speak for--have announced their 
support for the Penny-Kasich motion to cut spending by $26.1 billion 
over the next 5 years. They understand that it represents our last 
chance on this year's budget to cut the deficit.
  I ask Members to please review the following list and consider their 
reasons for supporting this motion. Then consider this motion to keep 
the cuts that were passed in the Senate. We think you will agree that 
cutting spending by just a fraction over the next 5 years is the least 
our constituents can expect from us.

               Organizations Endorsing the Kasich Motion

       American Business Conference--A coalition of chief 
     executive officers from the fastest growing mid-sized 
     companies in America.
       Americans for Tax Reform--A non-profit, non-partisan 
     national taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform 
     promotes free market economic policies and lower taxes.
       Associated Builders and Contractors--A national 
     construction association representing 16,000 merit (open) 
     shop construction and construction-related firms in 80 
     chapters across the United States.
       Association of Concerned Taxpayers--A grassroots lobbying 
     organization working for tax simplification and tax reduction 
     and opposing tax increases.
       Chamber of Commerce--The world's largest federation of 
     business companies and associations and is the principal 
     spokesgroup for the American business community.
       Christian Coalition--A pro-family organization with over 1 
     million members.
       Citizens Against Government Waste--A 550,000 member private 
     sector, non-partisan, non-profit organization which educates 
     the American people about the waste, mismanagement, and 
     inefficiency in the Federal Government.
       Citizens for a Sound Economy--A 250,000 member citizen 
     advocacy group that promotes market- based solutions to 
     public policy problems.
       Concerned Women for America--The nation's largest non-
     partisan, politically active women's organization with over 
     600,000 members.
       Concord Coalition--A bipartisan, grassroots organization 
     dedicated to eliminating the deficit.
       Family Research Council--The Family Research Council is an 
     independent, non-profit, advocacy organization dedicated to 
     ensuring that the interests of the family are considered and 
     respected in the formation of public policy.
       Financial Executive Institute--Represents over 14,000 
     senior financial executives from over 8,000 companies 
     throughout the United States. As financial executives, they 
     are primarily committed to bringing greater financial 
     responsibility to the Federal Government
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Federation of Independent Business--The nation's 
     largest advocacy organization representing small and 
     independent business owners. With a membership of more than 
     600,000 business owners, NFIB is a melting pot of commercial 
     enterprise: high tech manufacturers and family farmers, 
     neighborhood retailers and service companies.
       National Taxpayers Union--Founded in 1969, The National 
     Taxpayers Union is the nation's largest non-partisan, non-
     profit taxpayers' organization. NTU represents over 250,000 
     taxpayers dedicated to limited government and fiscal 
     responsibility.
       Responsible Budget Action Group--A bipartisan organization 
     formed to lobby on major budget and fiscal policy issues. 
     RBAG undertakes a lobbying campaign only when it is the 
     consensus of the board that the issue is of such overwhelming 
     significance and importance to warrant involvement.
       Senior's Coalition--A non-profit, non-partisan senior 
     educational and advocacy group with over 2 million members 
     and supporters nationwide, the Senior's Coalition is 
     America's third largest senior's organization.
       Small Business Survival Committee--A small business 
     advocacy group that works to oppose taxes, regulations, and 
     pending legislation at all levels of government that impose 
     unfair burdens on American businesses and impede economic 
     growth.
                                  ____


   American Business Conference Resolution on Fiscal Year 1995 Budget

       Resolved, The American Business Conference (ABC), 
     reaffirming its view that persistent federal budget deficits, 
     combined with a low rate of national saving, are serious 
     impediments to long-term economic growth, calls on the House 
     and Senate budget resolution conferees to adopt the spending 
     cuts approved by the Senate in its budget resolution for 
     fiscal year 1995. These spending cuts represent an additional 
     reduction over five years of $43.2 billion in budget 
     authority and $26 billion in outlays from the Clinton 
     Administration's budget proposal and the budget resolution of 
     the House of Representatives. Believing, with the President, 
     that the defense budget should not be subject to additional 
     cuts beyond those achieved in OBRA 1993, ABC calls on House 
     and Senate conferees to direct that the spending cuts fall on 
     non-defense programs.
                                  ____



                                     Americans For Tax Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 1994.
     Hon. John Kasich,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Kasich: On behalf of the members of Americans for 
     Tax Reform, I want to thank you for your efforts to achieve 
     real deficit reduction, without raising taxes.
       As we approach April 15, the real pain of a growing tax 
     burden is being felt by millions of Americans. All the more 
     important then, is your motion to instruct House conferees to 
     accept the modicum of spending cuts enacted by the Senate in 
     the Budget Bill. I am happy to support this effort, and to 
     commit the members of ATR to the battle. Feel free to make 
     whatever use of this letter you wish.
           Sincerely,
                                               Grover G. Norquist.
                                  ____

                                               Associated Builders


                                        and Contractors, Inc.,

                                      Rosslyn, VA, April 13, 1994.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 16,000 member 
     companies of the Associated Builders and Contractors we 
     strongly urge you to support the motion by Representatives 
     Tim Penny, John Kasich and Charles Stenholm to instruct the 
     House conferees for the FY 1995 Congressional Budget 
     Resolution to accept the $26 billion in cuts approved by the 
     Senate.
       Senators James Exon and Charles Grassley were successful in 
     passing their amendment to cut discretionary spending by $26 
     billion. ABC feels that it is important to retain these 
     Senate cuts in the House Resolution to set an example for 
     fiscal responsibility in our nation's budget process.
       While attempting to cut an extra $26 billion from the $1.5 
     trillion budget will not balance the budget, it does send an 
     important message to the American people that Congress is 
     willing to take a small step toward curbing the runaway 
     budget deficit.
       Further, ABC strongly urges you to retain the House 
     amendment by Representative Mike Parker to the Resolution 
     which assumes savings from an increase in the Davis-Bacon 
     threshold to $100,000 and a reduction in the reporting 
     requirements from weekly to monthly. This amendment is 
     identical to Vice President Gore's National Performance 
     Review which recommended an increase in the Davis-Bacon 
     threshold to $100,000 and reduction of the paperwork 
     associated with the law.
       Please support the motion to instruct to accept the $26 
     billion in cuts approved by the Senate. Also retain the 
     increase in the Davis-Bacon threshold to $100,000 and a 
     reduction in the reporting requirements from weekly to 
     monthly.
           Sincerely,
                                             Charlotte W. Herbert,
                             Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                           Association of Concerned Taxpayers,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 1994.
     Hon. John Kasich,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: Your efforts to achieve a reasonable substitute 
     for the Clinton Budget are of primary importance. It is 
     critical that we continue to move towards fiscal sanity, and 
     clear that your proposal did that.
       Unfortunately, the House saw fit to continue its profligate 
     ways. The taxpayer fared somewhat better in the Senate, if 
     the House will accept the Exon-Grassley amendment cutting the 
     budget by $26 billion over five years. While this does not 
     achieve the level of savings in the original Kasich 
     substitute, it is a good step in the right direction, and 
     deserves support.
       Please count the members of the Association of Concerned 
     Taxpayers among the supporters of your effort to instruct the 
     House conferees to accept the Senate position.
       And thanks again for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gordon S. Jones.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 1994.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kasich: As the House appoints conferees 
     to the FY 93 Budget Resolution, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
     strongly supports your motion to instruct House conferees to 
     agree to Senate language on discretionary spending caps. As 
     you know, the Senate version of the Budget Resolution would 
     lower these caps by $26.1 billion over five years, reflecting 
     an amendment by Senator Grassley (R-IA).
       The Chamber believes the Grassley amendment would place 
     renewed pressure on discretionary spending programs. As 
     Congress works to meet these ambitious targets, we are 
     hopeful that a solid examination and prioritization of 
     federal programs will result. Our nation can no longer afford 
     programs that are ineffective, inefficient, or that fail to 
     advance the broader national interest.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing 215,000 
     businesses, 3,000 state and local chambers of commerce, 1,200 
     trade and professional associations, and 69 American Chambers 
     of Commerce abroad, applauds your leadership on this issue. 
     We look forward to working with you on other opportunities to 
     return the nation's government to fiscal responsibility.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                              Christian Coalition,


                                          Capitol Hill Office,

                                                    April 4, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the one million 
     members and supporters of the Christian Coalition, we urge 
     you to resist any efforts to weaken the spending cuts now 
     contained in S. Con. Res. 63., the concurrent budget 
     resolution for fiscal year 1995.
       A bipartisan effort, led by Senators Exon and Grassley, in 
     the Senate Budget Committee resulted in a resolution which 
     includes an amendment to cut discretionary spending outlays 
     by $26 billion over the next five years. Now the bipartisan 
     team of Representatives Penny, Stenholm and Kasich is leading 
     this effort in the House to keep these cuts. These spending 
     reductions are only a modest step in reducing the deficit, 
     yet it is imperative that they be preserved.
       Congress has had several opportunities, but has failed, 
     this year to reduce the deficit and provide tax relief for 
     families. We know this is to the frustration to many of those 
     Members who for years have tried to cut spending and to those 
     Members who were elected in the last cycle on pledges of 
     fiscal reform.
       On April 15, millions of American families will be required 
     to pay almost 40 percent of their income on taxes combined 
     for all levels of government. Families have no choice but to 
     spend within their means. It is time for Congress to do the 
     same.
       The legacy of debt we are leaving for our children is a 
     disgrace. We urge you to preserve the $26 billion in spending 
     reductions. The fiscally responsible votes will be ``YES'' on 
     the previous question and ``YES'' on the original Kasich 
     Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Marshall Wittmann,
                                    Director, Legislative Affairs.
     Heidi Scanlon,
                                   Director, Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            The Concord Coalition,


                           1025 Vermont Avenue NW., Suite 810,

                                    Washington, DC,April 14, 1994.

                A Modest Gesture in the Right Direction

       The Concord Coalition today indicated its support for a 
     motion to instruct House conferees on the budget resolution 
     to support a 5-year, $26 billion spending reduction that was 
     added by Senators Exon (D-NE) and Grassley (R-IA) to the 
     Senate's version of the budget resolution.
       ``Compared to Concord's recommendations, the proposed 
     reduction of $26 billion is a pittance,'' said former Senator 
     Warren B. Rudman, Co-chair of The Concord Coalition. ``It 
     would translate into only $1.6 billion of spending cuts next 
     year, a mere 3 tenths of one percent of discretionary 
     spending, and less than a 1 percent cut over the next five 
     years. Nevertheless, it is a move in the right direction. 
     Anyone serious about reducing the federal budget deficit 
     should be willing to trim appropriations by these small 
     amounts,'' Rudman added.
       ``Reconciliation legislation to trim entitlements is off 
     the agenda for this year and the health care reform debate 
     calls into question whether or how son health costs can be 
     brought under control,'' said Martha Phillips, Executive 
     Director of The Concord Coalition. ``The modest discretionary 
     cuts proposed in the Senate Budget Resolution would be at 
     least a symbolic gesture in the direction of deficit 
     reduction.''
       The Concord Coalition's own Zero Deficit Plan, which would 
     balance the budget by the year 2000, calls for fifty specific 
     domestic discretionary spending terminations and reductions 
     totalling $94 billion over the next five years, plus another 
     $14 billion in defense and international spending reductions. 
     In the same five years, the Zero Deficit Plan would add $19 
     billion in new domestic discretionary spending for 
     investments. Thus, Concord's net discretionary reductions 
     would total $89 billion. In addition, The Concord Coalition's 
     plan required increased revenues and major reductions in 
     entitlement spending.
       The Concord Coalition is a bipartisan nonprofit grass roots 
     organization dedicated to strengthening America's economy by 
     eliminating the federal budget deficit. It is co-chaired by 
     former Senators Paul E. Tsongas (D-MA) and Warren B. Rudman 
     (R-NH).
                                  ____



                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 1994.
       Dear Representative: The House soon will consider a motion 
     to instruct the conferees on the FY 1995 Congressional Budget 
     Resolution to be offered by Representatives John Kasich (R-
     OH), Tim Penny (D-MN), and Charles Stenholm (D-TX). The goal 
     of the motion to instruct is to preserve $26 billion in 
     budget cuts adopted last month in the Senate version of the 
     Budget Resolution. As you are aware, Senators James Exon (D-
     NE) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) offered the successful 
     amendment, and we are anxious to see the House of 
     Representatives follow suit.
       It is time to make the cuts count. This is not just another 
     motion. This instruction to the conferees would set an 
     example for fiscal responsibility in our nation's budget 
     process. The effort in the Senate to include the cuts 
     totaling $26 billion was completely bipartisan. Three 
     attempts to strip some or all of the spending cuts were 
     defeated.
       Inside the Beltway, this may be a tough vote for some 
     members of Congress. But American taxpayers know that adding 
     to the deficit is more painful than a single vote in the U.S. 
     House of Representatives.
       The 600,000 members of the Council for Citizens Against 
     Government Waste (CCAGW) urge you to vote to recede to the 
     spending cuts in the Senate Budget Resolution. It is a vote 
     in the best interest of our children and their children. 
     CCAGW will rate this vote in our annual ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                              Tom.
                                  ____


                          CSE Key Vote Notice

                                                   April 12, 1994.
     Issue: Budget resolution (motion to instruct House 
         conferees).
     Vote: For the previous question and the Kasich amendment.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 250,000 members of 
     Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), I urge you to vote yes on 
     the previous question and yes on the original Kasich 
     Amendment to instruct House conferees to accept the $26 
     billion in spending cuts. A vote for both issues signifies 
     your support to preserve the spending cuts passed by the 
     Senate.
       CSE will count this as a KEY VOTE to be reported to our 
     members in your district. This KEY VOTE will be used to 
     determine your eligibility for our Jefferson Award, to be 
     presented at the conclusion of this Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Michele Isele,
                           Vice President of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                  Concerned Women for America,

                                                    April 6, 1994.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Concerned Women for America's members 
     throughout the United States are very disturbed by the 
     increased tax burden on families which often compels both 
     parents to enter the work force in order to make financial 
     ends meets. Ironically, two-thirds of a working mother's 
     salary in the average two parent, two-income household, will 
     still go to pay for federal taxes rather than additional 
     income for her family.
       Representatives John Kasich (R-OH), Tim Penny (D-MN) and 
     Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) recognize the overwhelming burden 
     placed on American families and are working to secure 
     America's future through deficit reduction and responsible 
     government spending. In continuation of the bipartisan 
     amendment passed in the Senate, Concerned Women for America 
     urges Members to cut discretionary spending outlays by $26 
     billion over the next five years. These cuts are the first 
     step assuring a sound economic future for America's children. 
     In order to achieve deficit reduction, the government must 
     work the way American families reduce their own personal 
     budget problems--through the reduction of spending.
       CWA believes this is a winning issue. Our members strongly 
     urge you to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' 
     on the original Kasich Amendment to the FY 95 Budget.
       Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to 
     working with you further on this issue. Concerned Women for 
     America is the largest non-partisan, politically active 
     women's organization in the nation, representing over 600,000 
     members.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Beverly LaHaye,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                      Family Research Council,

                                                    April 7, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: We strongly urge you to support 
     the Kasich/Penny/Stenholm motion to instruct the House 
     conferees on the Budget Resolution to accept the Exon-
     Grassley amendment as added in the Senate. The Exon-Grassley 
     amendment will require an additional $26 billion in 
     discretionary spending cuts over the next five years.
       This step towards greater deficit reduction is important to 
     families because of the special interest that families have 
     in future generations. Parents are concerned that any debt 
     that is passed on to the next generation will serve as a 
     serious hindrance to their children's economic well-being. 
     Reducing the deficit is vital to the long-term strength of 
     the U.S. economy and thus the long-term economic strength of 
     the family.
       The cuts in Exon-Grassley are small, calling for only one-
     third of one percent over the next five years. The benefits, 
     however, of beginning to reduce the deficit are great. Please 
     do not pass up this opportunity for deficit reduction.
       Please support the Exon-Grassley amendment by voting for 
     the Kasich/Penny/Stenholm motion to instruct the conferees.
           Sincerely,


                                                Gary L. Bauer,

                                                        President.
                                  ____



                               Financial Executives Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 1994.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Ranking Member, House Budget 
         Committee, Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Kasich: On behalf of Financial Executives 
     Institute, I am writing to offer FEI's strong support to the 
     bipartisan effort in the House led by you, Rep. Tim Penny, 
     and Rep. Charlie Stenholm to preserve the Senate's $26 
     billion in spending cuts passed in S. Con. Res. 63.
       Financial Executives Institute (FEI), is a professional 
     association of 14,000 senior financial executives from some 
     8,000 major corporations throughout the United States and 
     Canada.
       As senior financial executives, we have long understood the 
     correlation between fiscal responsibility and the efficient 
     operation of our corporations. Indeed, if any corporation 
     operated in the same manner as the Federal Government, the 
     SEC would shut it down.
       While attempting to cut an extra $26 billion from the $1.5 
     trillion budget will not balance the budget, it does send an 
     important message to the American people that Congress is 
     willing to take a small step toward curbing the runaway 
     budget deficit.
       We commend you and your colleagues for your tireless 
     dedication to effect real change in the way Congress spends 
     the American people's hard earned dollars. FEI stands ready 
     to assist you in this important effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Kaitz.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                                   April 14, 1994.
     Hon. Charles W. Stenholm,
     U.S. House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Stenholm: This letter is to inform you 
     of NAM's strong support for the pending motion to instruct 
     House conferees on the budget resolution to accept the $26 
     billion in spending cuts passed by the Senate.
       We believe these additional spending cuts are a necessary 
     step in further reducing federal budget deficits that are 
     still too high.
       The NAM therefore urges the House of Representatives to 
     accept the Senate's $26 billion in discretionary spending 
     cuts over the next five years.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul R. Huard.
                                  ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1994.
     The Honorable,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I 
     urge you to support the motion to instruct House conferees on 
     the Budget Resolution to accept the $26 billion in spending 
     cuts approved by the Senate. I strongly encourage you to 
     support this motion when it comes to the House floor for a 
     vote.
       The vote is likely to take place on Wednesday, April 13. 
     Representatives Penny and Kasich are planning to offer the 
     bipartisan motion to accept the spending cuts approved by the 
     Senate. Senators Grassley and Exon led a bipartisan effort 
     resulting in the Senate Budget Committee reporting out a 
     resolution which included an amendment to cut discretionary 
     spending by $26 billion over the next five years. The full 
     Senate adopted the resolution including the cuts by a vote of 
     57-40.
       The House motion to accept the $26 billion in cuts 
     represents just a fraction of all federal spending; however, 
     it is a necessary step to reduce the deficit and the size of 
     the federal government. NFIB members have consistently and 
     overwhelmingly voted in favor of immediate deficit reduction, 
     88% in favor most recently.
       NFIB members believe that spending must be cut now. Again, 
     I urge you to vote for the bipartisan motion to instruct 
     conferees to adopt the $26 billion in spending cuts passed by 
     the Senate.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                                   Vice President,
                                     Federal Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
       Dear Representative: The 250,000-member National Taxpayers 
     Union (NTU) strongly urges you to vote in favor of the Penny-
     Kasich Motion to accept the $26 billion in cuts approved by 
     the Senate.
       A bipartisan effort, led by Senators Exon and Grassley, in 
     the Senate Budget Committee resulted in a resolution which 
     includes an amendment to cut discretionary spending by $26 
     billion. In the House, a bipartisan team led by 
     Representatives John Kasich, Tim Penny, and Charlie Stenholm 
     is working to keep the Senate cuts intact.
       While no plan to cut federal spending is painless, this 
     motion is an important step to avoid the greater economic 
     pain of deficits spiraling out of control.
       The American people have sent a clear message to Congress--
     cut spending and balance the budget. A vote for the Penny-
     Kasich Motion proves that you hear the people and heed their 
     voices.
       Vote YES on the Penny-Kasich Motion to preserve the Senate 
     cuts.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jill Lancelot,
                                  Director, Congressional Affairs.
                                  ____

                                       Committee For a Responsible


                                               Federal Budget,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1994.
       Dear Former Colleague: This week, the House is expected to 
     vote on a resolution to be offered by Representatives Penny, 
     Kasich, Stenholm and others. The resolution will instruct 
     House Conferees to agree, in the conference on the budget 
     resolution to the Exon/Grassley amendment, to cut spending 
     and the deficit.
       We believe that now, while the economy is growing, 
     unemployment is declining, interest rates are edging up and 
     inflation fears are surfacing, is the optimum time to do more 
     to reduce Federal spending and the deficit. We urge you, 
     therefore, to support the Penny/Kasich/Stenholm resolution 
     and other serious proposals to achieve that goal. Let us know 
     what we can do to support your efforts toward that end.
           Best regards,
     Robert N. Giaimo.
     Henry Beilmon.
                                  ____



                                        The Seniors Coalition,

                                                   April 12, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: We at The Seniors Coalition, a 
     non-profit, non-partisan organization representing over 
     2,000,000 members and supporters in all fifty states, support 
     budget cuts in pork-barrel discretionary spending in order to 
     protect the Social Security Trust Funds.
       Accordingly, we urge you to help protect Social Security by 
     supporting the Penny-Kasich motion to preserve the Senate's 
     $26.1 billion in spending reductions over five passed in S. 
     Con. Res. 63.
       How do spending cuts and progress toward a balanced budget 
     help Social Security?
       Currently, Social Security is operating with a cash reserve 
     of less than 2 years. Some claim that today's high FICA taxes 
     are creating a much larger surplus to ``cushion'' the system 
     when the ``baby boomer'' generation retires, but where is the 
     money?
       The answer is that it has been ``borrowed'' by the 
     government through U.S. bonds to finance the federal deficit.
       Many in Congress claim that these ``I.O.U.s'' will be paid 
     back to Social Security to meet the needs of tomorrow's 
     retirees, but when a nation has a debt of over 4 trillion, 
     and not a penny has been paid back since the last balanced 
     budget in 1969, can we trust Social Security's future to a 
     government IOU?
       The farther into debt the nation falls, the less likely we 
     will ever pay off the nation's debt to the Social Security 
     Trust Fund. Future benefits (guaranteed by the then worthless 
     bonds) will have to be paid for with higher taxes or benefit 
     cuts.
       Balancing the budget would mean no additional government 
     bonds to finance the deficit, and no more ``borrowing'' from 
     the Social Security Trust Fund. This would truly protect the 
     future of our nation's retirees.
       The Penny-Kasich motion is an excellent start. If we can't 
     cut $26.1 billion today, what kind of future do we have. What 
     kind of future does Social Security have. Please think of 
     that before you vote. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jake Hansen,
                                 Director of Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____


       [From the Small Business Survival Committee, Apr. 4, 1994]

                           Legislative Alert

       Dear Small Business Owner: A coalition of national 
     grassroots organizations are working to cut spending and save 
     taxpayers money, but their efforts may be wasted unless we 
     act now to let our voice be heard!
       Recently, the U.S. Senate Budget Committee adopted a 
     resolution to cut $26.1 billion dollars in discretionary 
     spending from the budget. That means $26.1 billions of 
     wasteful spending taxpayers and small business owners won't 
     have to pay for! This measure was approved by the Senate in a 
     70-40 vote.
       The House of Representatives is now considering a motion 
     offered by Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), Tim Penny (D-MN), and 
     Charles Stenholm (D-TX) to preserve $26 billion in spending 
     cuts adopted by the Senate. There is a danger that some 
     congressmen may try to substitute an alternative resolution 
     for the Kasich amendment that won't cut spending. In fact, 
     the $26 billion dollars in savings could be spent on new and 
     wasteful programs!
       The voice of small business must be heard on this critical 
     issue! The Small Business Survival Committee believes that 
     spending must be cut now, not sometime in the future. All 
     SBSC members are urged to contact their congressional 
     representatives before April 12 and tell them to vote ``YES'' 
     on the original Kasich amendment.
       Your congressional representative can be reached at 
     202.224.3121 (Capitol switchboard), or through your local 
     district office.
       Thank you for your effort. Every day small business owners 
     have to make tough financial decisions--its about time 
     Congress does the same. Your voice counts!
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
                                                        President.
                                  ____


       [From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, Apr. 12, 1994]

    How Domestic Cuts Can Pay for the Exon-Grassley Budget Amendment

       (Updating Backgrounder No. 931, ``The Clinton Challenge 
     Answered,'' March 5, 1993)
       This week, lawmakers in the House will debate whether to 
     adopt the Exon-Grassley amendment to the Administration's 
     fiscal year 1995 budget. This Senate-passed amendment, 
     sponsored by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Chuck Grassley 
     (R-IA), requires $26 billion in unspecified cuts from 
     discretionary spending over the next five years, with all of 
     the savings to be applied to deficit reduction. Critics of 
     the amendment claim that cutting what amounts to $1 from 
     every $320 of federal spending will result in draconian 
     reductions in sensitive programs. Such claims are little more 
     than variations on the ``Washington Monument Ploy,'' in which 
     bureaucrats and politicians mobilize public opinion against 
     budget cuts by warning that an agency's most visible program 
     might be shut down.
       Since the House-passed budget did not contain a similar 
     measure, the differences between the two bills will have to 
     be worked out in a conference committee composed of leading 
     budgeteers from the House and Senate. As it now stands, the 
     House conferees will argue for stripping the Senate language 
     from the budget. But a bipartisan team, led by 
     Representatives John Kasich (R-OH), Tim Penny (D-MN), and 
     Charles Stenholm (D-TX) has drafted a motion to instruct 
     House conferees to maintain the discretionary spending cuts 
     approved by the Senate.
       The Kasich-Penny-Stenholm effort faces stiff opposition 
     from many camps, including the White House. Oddly, the 
     principal argument used by the White House is that this tiny 
     cut in federal spending will have a serious impact on an 
     already shrinking defense budget. Such claims are erroneous. 
     There is no need to touch defense spending to meet the 
     requirements of the Exon-Grassley amendment. Lawmakers could 
     easily find the necessary cuts in the fattened domestic 
     discretionary area of federal spending. Any claims to the 
     contrary are simply thinly veiled attempts by the White House 
     to protect its new spending initiatives--which Clinton calls 
     ``investments.''
       There are three common arguments against the Exon-Grassley 
     spending cuts:
       Claim #1. Because of last year's deficit reduction bill, 
     spending is under control, so no further spending cuts are 
     needed.
       Wrong. According to the Administration's own budget, 
     released in February, total federal spending will grow by 
     $370 billion over the next five years, to a level of $1.85 
     trillion in fiscal 1999. This hike in spending exceeds the 
     $340 billion increase in the budget over the past five years.
       Clinton's own budget figures show that he will become one 
     of the biggest spending Presidents in history. And since 
     defense spending is projected to fall in nominal terms by 
     some $22 billion by 1999, all of the growth in government is 
     on the domestic side of the federal budget. After adjusting 
     for inflation, domestic spending (excluding net interest and 
     savings and loan bailout costs) will grow 14 percent more in 
     four years under Bill Clinton than it did during the twelve 
     years of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan combined.
       By fiscal 1997, aggregate domestic spending will exceed 15 
     percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By contrast, the 
     entire government consumed only 17.6 percent of GDP at the 
     beginning of the Great Society era in 1965.
       Claim #2. The 1993 budget deal placed tight caps on 
     discretionary spending; more cuts would force the gutting of 
     essential programs.
       Wrong. The ``hard'' freeze in overall discretionary 
     spending gives the illusion of austerity, but actually allows 
     for a boost in domestic spending at the expense of the 
     defense budget. Domestic discretionary spending currently 
     stands at over $247 billion, the highest level in history, 
     even after adjusting for inflation. This level is $19 billion 
     higher than George Bush's last budget and some $79 billion 
     higher than Reagan's last budget. For the big spenders who 
     have enjoyed such large increases in domestic discretionary 
     spending, any reasonable restraints in spending would seem 
     ``draconian.''
       Since Reagan's last budget in fiscal 1989, defense spending 
     has declined $61 billion, in 1993 constant dollars. Half of 
     these cuts have gone toward deficit reduction, but the other 
     half have funded increases in domestic discretionary 
     spending.
       Because of these trends, the end result of six years of 
     collective Bush-Clinton spending decisions will be that 
     domestic discretionary spending in fiscal 1996 will surpass 
     defense spending for the first time. This is quite an 
     achievement considering that defense spending exceeded all 
     domestic spending by 30 percent at the time young Bill 
     Clinton posed with President Kennedy in the White House Rose 
     Garden.
       If lawmakers are serious about cutting spending in order to 
     reduce the deficit, they can easily find $26 billion in cuts 
     over five years from the bloated domestic part of the 
     discretionary budget. Indeed, for those who are looking for 
     cuts, the Congressional Budget Office last month released its 
     annual guide, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue 
     Options.'' This publication contains hundreds of possible 
     spending cut measures, all of which seem to have been omitted 
     from last year's deficit reduction package. The following 
     examples, totaling nearly $52 billion, would be more than 
     sufficient to comply with the Exon-Grassley amendment:
       Claim #3. The Exon-Grassley cuts are not specific, and 
     lawmakers will have to take all or most of the savings out of 
     defense spending.
       Wrong. Defense spending has been cut to the bone, the 
     Washington's big spenders are not using this fact to protect 
     their own pork barrel programs. This ploy worries many 
     Members who rightfully believe that defense spending has been 
     cut far below what is prudent for the nation's defense needs. 
     Indeed, the Clinton budget projects that by fiscal 1999, 
     defense spending will fall to 2.9 percent of GDP, the lowest 
     level since the 1930s. The Clinton Administration's five-year 
     defense budget is already $100 billion short of the amount 
     needed to fund the forces called for in its own defense plan.
       These cuts in defense spending over the next five years are 
     especially severe when compared with the disproportionately 
     large increases in aggregate domestic spending during the 
     same period. Adjusting for inflation (in 1993 dollars), every 
     $1 decline in defense spending is met by a $2.42 increase in 
     domestic spending. This means that Washington is poised to 
     spend a ``peace dividend'' twice, not return it to Americans 
     in the form of tax relief. Under these conditions, lawmakers 
     should ferret out every dollar of wasteful spending from 
     domestic programs before they turn to defense for more cuts.
       House lawmakers should think twice before rejecting the 
     Exon-Grassley amendment to cut a mere $26 billion from 
     federal spending over the next five years. Indeed, they 
     should ignore the scare tactics used by critics at the White 
     House who are trying to protect wasteful domestic spending at 
     the expense of an already anemic defense budget. If members 
     need suggestions on where to cut domestic spending, they need 
     look no further than the find work of their own Congressional 
     Budget Office.

                                               Scott A. Hodge,

                                       Grover M. Hermann Fellow in
                                        Federal Budgetary Affairs.

  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Kasich 
motion. This is not an instruction that deals with a sliver. It is a 
motion that deals with reducing discretionary spending, which 
represents a little over a third of the Federal budget. It is the 
portion of the budget where a year ago we adopted a freeze at or below 
the estimated 1993 levels for the next 5 years, unprecedented.
  We are complying with the tough restrictions on discretionary 
spending that we set in 1993, which will put us at the lowest level of 
discretionary spending in relation to GDP in, I believe, close to 50 
years, 45 years. It is on top of cuts and discipline of last year, a 
1.5 percent cut in this portion of the budget that funds our investment 
programs, and funds our programs in education, pays for our national 
defense, builds the infrastructure of this country.
  My friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] would suggest it 
should have no impact on defense, and quotes some words from part of a 
Senate amendment. He takes the whereas clause and skips the resolve 
clause, which understands that the Senate amendment would have impact 
on both domestic discretionary spending and defense spending.
  The reality is that this amendment this year and over the next 4 
years would have significant impact on everything that we choose to do 
on a discretionary basis, whether it is investing in kids, paying for 
health research, or defending our country.
  As a matter of fact, if we take the assumptions of the Senate author, 
the three areas that have the biggest impact are national defense, 
education, and criminal justice. We have the Senate, which just a short 
time ago insisted on a new trust fund for the crime bill, and this 
amendment, saying we are going to take our $1 billion away from it, 
consistency I do not understand.
  Madam Speaker, we passed a good program a year ago. It has been 
working economically. In discretionary spending, which we are dealing 
with today, it has discipline tougher than this Congress has known in 
years. Let us stay with it. Let us not go beyond it. Let us keep our 
common sense so we can deal with the common problems of this country.
  Madam Speaker, for the Record I include the following information on 
the Distribution of 1995 Exon-Grassley cuts:

                 DISTRIBUTION OF 1995 EXON-GRASSLEY CUTS                
                        (In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  As described by      Proportionately  
                                   Exon-Grassley    --------------------
                               ---------------------                    
                                  Budget               Budget    Outlays
                                authority   Outlays  authority          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
050Defense....................     -1,333      -391     -2,648      -775
150International Affairs......       -220       -64       -205      --60
250General Science............          0         0       -168       -49
270Energy.....................         -9        -3        -63       -19
300Natural Resources..........          0         0       -207       -61
350Agriculture................          0         0        -42       -12
370Commerce and Housing Credit       -137       -40        -34       -10
400Transportation.............       -138       -40       -375      -110
450Community and Reg.                                                   
 Development..................       -357      -105        -89       -26
500Education and Training.....     -1,421      -416       -394      -115
550Health.....................       -163       -48       -215       -63
570Medicare...................         -9        -3        -29        -9
600Income Security............       -241       -71       -364      -107
650Social Security............          0         0        -25        -7
700Veterans Affairs...........        -78       -23       -173       -51
750Adinistration of Justice...       -986      -288       -163       -48
800General Government.........       -225       -66       -123       -36
920Allowances.................          0         0          0         0
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................     -5,317    -1,558     -5,317    -1,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of both the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, I do rise in my role as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, as well as a member of the Committee on the Budget. 
Frequently, we hear those who serve on the Committee on Appropriations 
say that ``We just really cannot make these cuts. They are going to cut 
too deeply into the programs that make such a difference.''
  Let us harken back and remember last fall, when we had the Penny-
Kasich amendment on the floor here to make some of the cuts that we 
have been talking about in the last several days and last several 
months. That was defeated.
  When it was defeated the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
said, ``We will have a separate set, a different set of cutting 
priorities.'' We had that list of cuts and we passed that list as a 
substitute for Penny-Kasich.
  Madam Speaker, what has happened since then? Some of them have been 
implemented. During the earthquake relief bill we implemented some of 
them, 25 percent, 30 percent, I do not know, but I think it is less 
than 50 percent of them have been implemented. We have not implemented 
what we said we were going to.
  Over and over again, members of the Committee on Appropriations say, 
``Gee, we just cannot make these cuts in the area that we are in,'' 
whether it is defense or whatever. This amendment recognizes, this 
motion to instruct recognizes that there are priority areas; that 
education, that defense, that protecting things like Social Security 
and some of the underlying social service programs are important.
  However, it does say that there are areas of discretionary spending 
where we can make cuts. Madam Speaker, this is the last opportunity we 
have to make cuts that are deeper than those that we have, and we 
should adopt this motion to instruct.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I believe my time has expired, but I will 
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is a member of the 
subcommittee which I chair on the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
gentleman knows that Indian health has been cut by $250 million. Where 
are we going to get the money to make up that necessary sum?
  Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I would just point out 
these are cuts, but we are not cutting into some of the basic programs 
here. We are talking about cuts that can be made without cutting into 
the fundamental social service programs we all recognize need to be 
protected. We need to make these cuts for our children and our 
grandchildren's future.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Kasich amendment. I do not 
think we will need a magnifying glass to find the cuts that will fall 
on the criminal justice system if this amendment passes. I have not 
brought mine up to the well here, because Members will not need it. 
What I would say to my colleagues very simply is this. We have done a 
very good job of cutting the deficit. The deficit is coming down, but 
we have to do it with care and with rationality.

                              {time}  1550

  We face a crisis in the criminal justice system. This is one area I 
think there is unanimous consensus in America that we are not spending 
enough.
  Madam Speaker, in our crime bill, we set up a trust fund. I think 
that is a good thing, but that mostly involves aid to localities, for 
cops on the beat, for building prisons, and for prevention programs. It 
would be ridiculous, it would made no sense, to put those programs out 
and then cut the sinew of Federal law enforcement which must also go 
along with our aid to the localities in the crime bill.
  Madam Speaker, if we were to cut the FBI and cut the DEA and cut the 
ATF the amounts of dollars as prescribed by Exon-Grassley, that is $1 
billion, that would be thousands of FBI agents, thousands of DEA 
agents, and we would be involved in what this body and what this town 
and what this Congress does too often, giving with one hand and taking 
away with the other so there is no net result.
  Madam Speaker, it is all clear that when the Senate tried specific 
amendments on what to cut, they could not agree, and so they passed 
this broad amendment. This broad amendment with the across-the-board 
kinds of cuts that would have to exist would decimate, decimate Federal 
law enforcement.
  Madam Speaker, let us not next week vote on a crime bill that will 
increase dollars to fighting the necessary fight against crime and yet 
today quietly and stealthily take away those same dollars by voting for 
this amendment.
  I urge defeat of the motion.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, may I ask the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Shepherd). Each side has 24 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
  Mr. KYL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Penny-Kasich motion 
to instruct members of the House-Senate Conference Committee to cut 
spending by $26.1 billion over the next 5 years.
  This represents a cut of just $1 from every $320 that the Federal 
Government will spend over that period.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KYL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, how much is that I ask the gentleman?
  Mr. KYL. Just $1, only $1 out of $320 for every dollar the Government 
spends.
  This is not so much a serious effort at deficit reduction as it is an 
indicator of just how serious Congress really is about even beginning 
to solve the problem.
  If we can't even cut spending by three-tenths of just 1 percent, how 
are we ever going to eliminate annual deficits that will amount to $176 
billion next year climbing to at least $201 billion in fiscal year 1999 
according to the administration's estimates?
  One of the concerns being expressed about this motion is that it will 
somehow gut defense. That's just not true. There is no reason to touch 
defense--which even President Clinton has conceded has been cut as far 
as it can be--to meet the requirements to the Penny-Kasich motion.
  Congress can find the necessary cuts in domestic programs, including 
the new spending initiatives the Clinton administration has proposed. 
Domestic discretionary spending currently amounts to over $247 billion, 
the highest level in history, even after adjusting for inflation.
  That is $19 billion higher than George Bush's last budget.
  Madam Speaker, every time a cut in spending is proposed, the special 
interest groups shift into high gear to scare people into believing 
that programs important to them will bear the full brunt of deficit 
reduction. There is always some excuse for not cutting spending.
  That has got to end here and now. Support the Penny-Kasich motion.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, another area cut by Exon-
Grassley.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget for giving me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct the 
conferees to agree to Senate provisions that would cut discretionary 
spending over 5 years by an additional $43 billion and outlays by $26 
billion below the caps set by last year's deficit reduction package.
  I will oppose the motion because if enacted it would have a serious 
impact on VA's health care system. You have already heard from many of 
your constituents about the inadequate budget for VA hospitals, 
outpatient clinics, and nursing homes. You've heard complaints about 
inadequate equipment and long waiting periods in order to get 
appointments with specialists. If we cut an additional $43 billion in 
budget authority over the next 5 years, I can tell you that you will 
hear even more complaints from veterans than you have in the past.
  Since there is no indication how the cuts will be made, we assume 
that VA would take its fair share of the cuts and, therefore, I shall 
oppose the motion to instruct the conferees.
  I know some Members are saying, ``There's Sonny again, defending 
veterans' programs,'' but I am on the right track.
  Madam Speaker, what we are getting ready to do if we adopt the Exon-
Grassley amendment, we are going to cut veterans' programs further by 
$173 million this year. Cuts in discretionary funds are killing us. 
Every time we come in here, someone is trying to take it away from 
veterans' programs. I get complaints from Members on both sides of the 
aisle that ``you are not giving us good service in the outpatient 
clinics, you are closing wards in our veterans' hospitals, that we 
cannot continue to cut, cut, cut.''
  Madam Speaker, over 2,000 veterans a month are moving into the State 
of Florida. There is a desperate situation down there. They are not 
handling these veterans' claims and requests for health care in a 
timely manner.
  I ask the Members to vote against this motion to instruct the 
conferees, and support the House-passed budget resolution.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds, and I read from 
the letter from the sponsors of this amendment:

       Our amendment did not designate where the spending 
     reductions should be made in the budget. The distribution 
     charts attached to Chairman Sabo's letter do not reflect how 
     either one of us would make the cuts required by our 
     amendment.

  That is from the sponsors of the amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am favoring this cut and I 
tell you why: It seems like every time we get in here we argue about 
whether or not to cut. People are tired, tired, tired of hearing more 
spending, more spending, more spending. And can we cut the budget? Yes, 
we can cut the budget. Do we have a surplus? No, we do not have a 
surplus and, no, do we have a strong defense? No, I agree with the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], we do not. But we do not 
have to cut defense. We can vote for this reduction in spending and get 
this country back on track, and it is a minimal cut, without cutting 
defense.
  Madam Speaker, I would say that no American in his right mind would 
cut our defense any further than it has already been cut in view of 
what is going on in the Nation today. So let us vote for these 
reductions and keep our country strong.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], and maybe he can help me understand the 
stealthy cut. It does not apply to defense, veterans' affairs; I 
thought I heard education, vital social programs. I am not sure what is 
left, but I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut for some 
explanation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, there are two overriding issues here: 
One is, where are we? The fundamental economic concern from people 
appointed to the Fed by the former Presidents is that the economy is 
getting too hot, that the budgets that the Democrats in this Congress 
have passed have brought this economy back to life and it may get out 
of control and get so hot that we are going to have inflation.
  The other thing to remember is what Mo Udall always said: ``May our 
words be gentle and kind for tomorrow we may have to eat them,'' and 
let us go back to the past and figure out if we ought to listen to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], who says to reject this amendment 
or some of the folks on the other side.
  Madam Speaker, a rhetoric versus reality test.
  Rhetoric: This is August 5, 1993. ``We will try to help you when this 
puts the economy in the gulch.''
  Reality: During President Clinton's first year, we had the largest 
increase in GDP in a decade.
  Rhetoric on this side: ``This is really Dr. Kevorkian's plan for the 
economy.''
  On our side, the reality is, confidence in retail sales and business 
investments; housing starts are up; all these things are up. That is 
the reality.
  The rhetoric, August 3, 1993: ``It is like a snakebite,'' meaning the 
President's plan. ``the venom is going to be injected into the body of 
the economy and kill jobs that Americans now have.''
  The reality: Employment shot up by almost half a million jobs in 
March of this year.
  Rhetoric: ``The deficit will reach another high.'' August 5.
  The reality: The deficit at its lowest point since 1979.
  Rhetoric: ``Not a single Federal program will be eliminated, not 
one.''
  What happened? The budget eliminated 115 Federal programs and cut 
more than 300 others.
  Madam Speaker, let us do what is responsible. The responsible and 
right thing is to follow the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
that working with this administration has given us a budget that 
brought the economy back to life, that is starting to bring jobs into 
my district and across this country and not end up in this foolishness 
that will cause this body and this country damage.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the ranking 
Republican on the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio for yielding me the time, and I thank my colleagues for 
participating in this important debate.
  Madam Speaker, I have concluded that I am going to support this 
motion to instruct conferees with respect to finding the money to save 
$26 billion in outlays over the next 5 fiscal years, and I want to 
explain to Members the process by which I arrived there.

                              {time}  1600

  The first and most important thing to me, as the ranking member on 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is that the Kasich amendment 
exempts from these proposed cuts the defense budget of the United 
States, and I think that is tremendously important.
  The second thing the Kasich amendment, which is a bipartisan effort 
sponsored by Members on the other side of the aisle, does is to expand 
the base from which these cuts are sought. It does not require that the 
cuts be taken from just the discretionary budget. It attempts to say, 
look at the total spending, except Social Security, that occurs in the 
Federal Government, which is roughly $1.2 trillion annually to find 
that relatively small amount with relation to the trillion, $26 billion 
over a 5-year period.
  In fact and in reality, as we all know, the budget resolution applies 
to the next fiscal year and the next fiscal year only, so we are really 
talking about the first year portion of those cuts, and I have got to 
say, Madam Speaker, I hope that we will adopt this one small step.
  I need to say further no matter what we do today with respect to the 
defense budget there is so much to be done as we look down the road, 
because in my view, the Clinton blueprint for the defense budget is a 
blueprint toward a hollow force and a broken budget. It is a blueprint 
that simply destroys the defense and national security of this Nation. 
It says to the people in the military that if you wear a uniform you 
cannot get a pay raise. That is what the budget says that has been 
presented to us.
  We have got to change that. We changed it last year. We have got to 
change it this year.
  It says that we are not going to invest in adequate housing and 
quarters for our troops. It said that last year. It says it this year. 
We have got to change it. It says we are not going to invest all the 
money required to repair equipment.
  The backlog in depot maintenance for the Marine Corps alone is up 700 
percent over 2 years, and it says we are not going to make the 
necessary investments to keep our forces modern and at the cutting 
edge.
  Madam Speaker, the defense budget is based on a group of rosy 
scenarios that would make even Harry Houdini feel embarrassed. It is no 
secret all we have to do is look at what has been said on the public 
record, from the Secretary of Defense on down; Pentagon officials have 
been telling us we can save tens of billions of dollars by changing the 
procurement process. How many times have we heard that around here? We 
can save tens of billions of dollars, they say, by changing management 
reform. Those are plug lines in their budget that are never going to 
occur.

  They say we can save tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure 
changes and base closings. In fact, that costs money up front. That is 
not going to happen. All of those anticipated savings that we have 
heard have been around for years. They are nothing but a house of 
cards, leaving the defense budget underfunded enormously.
  There is at least a $20 billion underfunding for inflation alone.
  Let me say that if we look at the hearing record when the Secretary 
of Defense testified, I asked him about the underfunding in the defense 
budget. He agreed to the $20 billion that was underfunded with respect 
to inflation. We agreed the pay raise was underfunded to the extent of 
about $14 billion. He agreed they were putting a plug line in for $14 
billion for acquisition reform.
  They are all phony, phony figures. The defense budget as it has been 
proposed will not stand up to scrutiny.
  I say to my friends that I hope that we will adopt the Kasich motion. 
We have got to make some room some place for additional savings. The 
$1.2 trillion Federal budget is the base that we are trying to to focus 
on as an area where we can find this amount of money, without impacting 
on an already overstrained defense budget.
  I hope we will do so.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Madam Speaker, I sat on the same budget as my friend from 
Pennsylvania does. Make no mistake about it, if we adopt this, defense 
is going to take another cut. There is no doubt about it. My friend 
knows it, and everybody in this House knows that we are going to take 
another cut. We are going to absorb another cut in defense if this 
passes. You know it, and everybody that has studied the budget in this 
House knows it.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina is 
right. Just as sure as the good Lord made little green apples, there 
will be a cut in defense as a result of this.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania terms this incorrectly. This is not 
an amendment. This is a motion to instruct to accept the Senate 
language proposal.
  Madam Speaker, the unintended consequences of this will be drastic 
for those who serve in uniform throughout our Nation and elsewhere. If 
the House accepts this proposal, the fiscal year 1995 cut to 
discretionary spending would be $5.3 billion. Using the Senate's 
author's own language, defense could be cut $1.3 billion in fiscal 
1995. If these same discretionary cuts were distributed 
proportionately, defense spending would be cut as much as $2.6 billion 
in fiscal year 1995.
  As you know by my votes and my talks on this floor, I am very 
concerned about the deficit. But I am also concerned about the young 
men and young women who serve our Nation's armed forces.
  The President made a pledge to cut the deficit, and he stood by that 
pledge. In support, the majority of the House helped him achieve that 
goal by passing the deficit-reduction package last year.
  Moreover, the President made another pledge, and that was to hold the 
line against further defense cuts, and that is what this is an attempt 
to do.
  Madam Speaker, deployments for the U.S. military are up drastically 
since the cold war ended. There is not enough money in the pipeline for 
training of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines adequately. 
The spare-parts problem is growing.
  This is more than a National Guard armory problem. This is more than 
having a reserve unit in your area closed down. We are talking about 
lives and training and capability of those in uniform. This is a very 
important issue for the United States of America.
  The special interest of which someone spoke a moment ago, the special 
interest is that of national security.
  Let us vote this down. Let us live by the President's pledge. Let us 
do what we did earlier against the Frank amendment, and let us go 
forward and keep our forces adequately funded.
  This will do drastic damage to them just as sure as we are in this 
Chamber today.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the senior Republican on the defense 
appropriations subcommittee.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio, for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I take this time to say to my colleagues that there 
have been a lot of versions that have been floated and negotiated back 
and forth, as Members discussed what would be done with respect to this 
resolution, this motion to instruct.
  Let me read from it: The only reason that I support it is because no 
further cuts can be made in defense, none. That is in the instruction 
itself. All you have to do is pick it up and read it. I have a copy of 
it here if you want to see what you are going to vote on. It says no 
further cuts will be made in the defense levels that are approved 
already.
  So the defense numbers are not an issue. The defense numbers are not 
an issue and off the table, and I hope this motion will be agreed to.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the 
fight to reduce the deficit.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, just as God made little green apples, a 
$6 trillion national deficit growing continuously at $200 billion plus 
is going to become a national defense issue for this country someday.
  One month ago I spent 2 days here on the House floor as we debated 
four different approaches to a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment. From speaker after speaker opposing these four amendments, I 
heard these words: ``We don't need a Constitutional Amendment. We just 
need to be willing to make the tough choices!''
  I have noticed that a favorite pastimes here in Washington these days 
is to point out any balanced budget amendment supporter who votes 
against spending cuts. I have no problem with that sort of attention. 
But I must say that I am wondering when I will have an opportunity to 
read some articles about all the people who proclaim, ``Make the hard 
choices, Make the hard choices'' but never do just that.
  Today, those people who opposed the constitutional amendment will 
have the chance to force some hard choices. Likewise, those who support 
a constitutional amendment will be given the chance to show that they 
are willing to back up that support with real deficit reduction. Will 
this one provision get us a balanced budget? Of course not. There are 
some who seem to believe that unless you can show how you will take 
every step of the journey to a balanced budget your effort is not 
credible. I believe we should search for every possible foothold on 
that journey and make each step we can.
  Today we have the opportunity to vote to retain $26 billion in 
spending cuts included by the Senate. As usual, everyone who feels 
threatened by hard choices has engaged in the all-too-familiar refrain 
of the coming of the end of the world.

  SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REDUCTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 FROM HOUSE-PASSED 
                      BUDGET RESOLUTION BY FUNCTION                     
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                     authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150International affairs..........................  ..........  ........
250Science........................................  ..........  ........
270Energy.........................................         334       162
300Natural resources..............................         459       394
350Agriculture....................................  ..........  ........
370Commerce, credit...............................         353       123
400Transportation.................................       312.3     231.3
450Comm. development..............................  ..........  ........
500Educ, training.................................         830       430
550Health.........................................  ..........  ........
570Medicare.......................................  ..........  ........
600Income security................................  ..........  ........
650Social Security................................  ..........  ........
700Veterans.......................................  ..........  ........
750Administration of Justice......................         100        31
800Gen. Government................................       260.6        86
920Allowances.....................................         450       145
                                                   ---------------------
      Total (billions)............................       3.099     1.602
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  These choices are indeed hard because they come out of discretionary 
spending. Now, that's not so hard for most domestic programs because 
domestic programs are slated to continue growing by more than 8 percent 
compared to last year's spending. In fact, even with the $26 billion 
cut and even if all $26 billion comes from programs other than defense, 
nondefense discretionary spending in 1999 will be $40 billion higher 
than it is this year.
  But for defense and agriculture, these cuts could be very hard indeed 
because these two areas have suffered an inordinate share of the past 
cuts. For defense, even in the House-passed budget, actual dollar 
spending in fiscal 1995 budget would go down by 7.3 percent from last 
year's spending.
  For that reason, I am pleased that the Kasich-Penny motion explicitly 
states that the House conferees insist on the highest level of defense 
spending within the scope of the conference. Since the House and Senate 
included levels to meet the President's defense request, the motion 
reaffirms our commitment to protecting the President's defense request. 
Although the entire motion is nonbinding, passage of the motion would 
in effect put the House on record in support of ``firewalls'' to 
protect the President's defense level.
  But the bottom line, regardless of whether you want to hold defense 
harmless or would like to cut more from defense programs, is that this 
battle will be fought on another day. Either there will be 218 votes to 
protect defense or there will be 218 votes to make cuts in defense. If 
there are 218 votes to make deeper defense cuts, those cuts will be 
made in the appropriations process regardless of what defense level is 
included in the budget resolution. The difference is that if the cuts 
occur in the appropriations process, the savings will be spent on non-
defense programs and not applied to reducing the deficit. Only the 
Kasich-Penny motion will move us toward applying any savings to the 
deficit.
  My strong preference would be to have additional cuts come from the 
entitlement side of spending. Clearly, it is entitlements which are 
driving the persistent deficits we are experiencing. That criticism 
notwithstanding, I believe we cannot afford to pass up this opportunity 
for deficit reduction. Instead of criticizing the spending cuts for 
what they do not do, it is more constructive to support the cuts as a 
step in the right direction while pursuing additional efforts to 
control entitlements.
  The simple truth is that this $26 billion in discretionary spending 
cuts provides the only deficit reduction option in the budget 
resolution. We urge your support of that cut by supporting this motion 
to instruct conferees.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I 
rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Kasich's motion would instruct the House conferees to agree to 
the Exon-Grassley amendment which would cut discretionary spending by 
an additional $26 billion in outlays over 5 years. This is an 
additional cut of 25 percent above and beyond the discretionary cuts of 
$102 billion in last year's budget package.
  This is simply unacceptable. Yes, the deficit is important, along 
with sustaining economic recovery. We know that increased productivity 
is one of the factors driving the recovery so why would we vote to cut 
education $1.4 billion when we know that education drives productivity.
  This country needs a balanced economic policy and last year's budget 
package put the deficit on a downward trend. But balance is not cutting 
education, or cutting criminal justice programs by $986 million on the 
same day we begin to debate the crime bill. Balance is about setting 
priorities. Yes, the deficit is a priority, along with other equally 
important priorities. A recent GAO report found that the number of poor 
children in the Nation grew by 26 percent between 1980 and 1990. And in 
my home town of Hartford, CT, nearly half of the children 2 and under, 
live in poverty. I stand here today to say that each and every one of 
those children is a priority.
  Let us look at where the real problem lies. Both OMB and CBO 
forecasts show domestic discretionary spending declining and scheduled 
to continue declining as a share of GDP. My colleagues, discretionary 
spending is not the problem. Despite all the rhetoric we will hear 
today, we all know that entitlements are the problem. Interestingly 
enough, entitlement spending, other than Medicare and Medicaid, also is 
projected to come down as a percentage of GDP. Rather, nearly 100 
percent of the problem is in Medicare and Medicaid. I would hope my 
colleagues remember that when health care reform comes to the floor.
  Vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct. A ``yes'' vote will come back 
to haunt your constituents for it will harm the future of our children 
and our country.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, what we need today is a little more common sense. The 
Federal Government will spend in excess of $8 trillion over the next 5 
years.
  The motion before us presently contemplates cutting back only $25 
billion of the spending level. That represents a three-tenths of 1 
percent cut in the total Federal spending.
  Who are we kidding that this is draconian? A three-tenths of 1 
percent cut in total spending over the next 5 years? We here a lot of 
discussion today about how this is draconian, it is going to kill every 
program in the budget. This is more Washington nonsense.
  Over the past few days, the White House and party leaders here on 
Capitol Hill have been telling Members whatever it takes to get them to 
vote ``no.'' To some, the case has been made that--you can't vote for 
this recommendation for cuts because it exempts defense, and we have 
got to take more money out of defense. To others, they say that there 
is language in this motion that exempts strongly--that does not 
strongly enough exempt defense and, therefore, these cuts are going to 
hit domestic programs. To others they say the language is generic, it 
does not specify where the cuts should fall and, therefore, it could 
hit some program that you like. To still others they say, ``Evidently 
the language is quite specific because it is now going to slash 
criminal justice and veterans programs and education programs.'' It is 
all nonsense.
  Something has to give, yes. We talk about spending freeze in today's 
budget. That is an overall freeze. What it really represents is $110 
billion less in defense spending over 5 years and a comparable increase 
in domestic spending over that same time period. Common sense tells you 
that a $26 billion cut is not a cut at all. Domestic discretionary 
spending will increase nearly $100 billion in 5 years. We are talking 
about scaling back that increase by only $26 billion.
  The problem with this amendment is not that it cuts too much but that 
it cuts too little. I wish we could do more at this time to address 
entitlement spending. That is the big bugaboo in the Federal budget.
  Half of all of our money goes to entitlement spending. We need to 
deal with that. I wish we could deal with that in this amendment. All 
we can do is deal with a very small sliver of the budget, and that 
happens to be discretionary spending. All we are suggesting is that we 
take a three-tenths of 1 percent cut of the total budget and scale back 
part of our discretionary spending increases over the next 5 years.
  To argue that this proposal cuts too much does not pass that 
commonsense test. Let us reject Washington's nonsense and vote for the 
Kasich amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  I have to say to my friend from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] this 
instruction relates to discretionary spending, which is a little over a 
third of the budget. Its impact is significant on discretionary 
spending, which is a part of the budget that we also put tight 
restrictions on, as the gentleman knows, in the 1993 budget agreement. 
It is over 1.5 percent in budget authority over this period of time on 
top of real restraint that we stopped earlier.
  So, to talk about these as slivers is misleading.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. SKELTON. Defense is discretionary spending; is that right?
  Mr. SABO. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SKELTON. And there is nothing to keep it from legally being cut; 
is that right?
  Mr. SABO. That is correct.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I was just down to Fort Campbell and saw 
the real property maintenance problems they are having. I talked to the 
wives of some of the people down at Fort Campbell, and they were 
telling me how they were having trouble getting access to medical care. 
These are just small examples of my growing concern about military 
readiness. I am starting to see some frays in military readiness, and I 
think it is because our defense cuts have put us on the very edge. We 
still have a high level of deployments around the world. Our military 
people are deployed--I think they said 50 percent of the time and that 
must be paid for. We have cut $150 billion from Defense in 15 years. 
It's the only major part of the budget that has taken sizable cuts. We 
have reduced it to the point where we cannot reduce it any more.
  Now let me just tell my colleagues the facts and how the budget 
allocation process works. We have 13 subcommittee chairmen on the 
Committee on Appropriations who will sit down after this budget 
resolution is finished. They will make a decision and a recommendation 
to the Democratic caucus of the committee and then to the full 
Committee on Appropriations--a recommendation about how the money in 
the budget resolution is going to be spent among the 13 appropriations 
subcommittees. In the 20 years that I have been on the Committee on 
Appropriations Madam Speaker, I have never seen a recommendation by the 
13 members, the chairmen of the subcommittees, ever change. And that 
recommendation always is guided by the principle that half the cuts 
come from Defense, and half of the spending cuts come from nondefense 
spending.
  Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``These are real facts of 
life. This is what will happen when the real money is allocated. And if 
this were to go through, there most likely will be roughly an $800 
million outlay cut in Defense. We cannot afford it.''
  Madam Speaker, I would urge the Members to carefully consider this 
vote, and even though this vote and the instructions to the conferees 
are nonbinding, I would urge my colleagues not to send such a strong 
and inappropriate signal that Defense can be cut further. I would urge 
the Members of the House to vote against these instructions which will 
cut Defense.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  I am going to need my magnifying glass again for the three charts to 
respond to the Budget Committee chairman. These cuts right here are 
Federal spending with the Exon-Grassley cuts in it. My colleagues can 
see a microscope is needed to see the difference in spending when we 
count all total Federal spending. If we are just looking at 
discretionary, nondefense discretionary, we also need a magnifying 
glass to see the difference here because this is nothing but a silver.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KASICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota to make his 
comment.
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Speaker, I take this time simply to respond to the 
chairman of the committee. He objected that we suggested this 
represented a three-tenths of 1 percent cut of total Federal spending 
over 5 years because this amendment or these cuts would actually be 
applied to discretionary accounts only. I will grant him that. If we 
talk about the measurement of these cuts against the discretionary 
spending items over the next 5 years, it represents a 1-percent cut 
over 5 years. That is minuscule.
  Madam Speaker, to say this is Draconian does not pass the commonsense 
test.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds to 
take this back to the big picture.
  This little sliver here, my colleagues, is all we are talking about 
saving, and to the people who are concerned about this I say: ``You see 
what is happening to the deficit in the outyears. It goes up, and it 
threatens the financial security of this country if we don't begin to 
deal with Federal spending. This is you chance to do it.''
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of both fiscal restraint 
and a strong defense, but against the Kasich motion to instruct 
conferees on the budget resolution.
  My reason is simple: I cannot support 26 billion dollars' worth of 
uncertainty. I voted for the $90-billion package of cuts in the Penny-
Kasich amendment to the reinventing Government bill last fall. I 
supported the historic 5-year budget plan initiated by the President 
that was predicted to cut the deficit by almost $500 billion and is now 
performing better than anyone expected. I also supported the House 
version of the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution which, by its terms, 
will take us $53 billion below the fiscal year 1994 deficit.
  I supported these measures because their spending cuts were 
enumerated. In contrast, the Exon-Grassley proposal adopted in the 
Senate is anything but; 26 billion dollars' worth of discretionary cuts 
could have been distributed among the various functions of the Senate 
budget resolution, but that is not what happened. I support that 
portion of the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
which attempts to provide some order to the decisions regarding defense 
spending and its impact on our industrial base, which is critical to 
the economy of my district, but I cannot support the motion as a whole 
because its protections are nonbinding and it does nothing to add 
certainty to the Senate action it endorses.
  Madam Speaker, Federal spending needs to be cut further, but we must 
do much more on the front end to make sure our choices for cuts are 
integrated into a carefully crafted strategy to fund a strong defense, 
maintain high skill, high wage jobs for American workers, and invest in 
critical priority programs like more cops on the beat.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the comments 
of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] who said children 
will be impacted by this bill. My children are impacted by the debt 
service that we are building up in this country.
  I say to my colleagues:

       If you take a look at $1.3 billion a day that we are 
     spending on just the interest, we could take that money and 
     apply it to some of the things that we want to in this 
     Chamber. But if we continue and cannot cut a sliver out of 
     $1.2 trillion over a 5-year period, you cannot tell the 
     American people that we cannot do that.

  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Kasich-Penny-Stenholm 
motion to instruct. This would cut spending by $26 billion over 5 
years. This is only one-third of 1 percent of total spending for 5 
years.
  Now, if Congress cannot cut spending this much, Congress cannot cut 
spending at all.
  Now let us look at Congress' record for the last year. We have to cut 
spending first, an alternative to a tax increase, and the House turned 
it down, and the House turned it down. A Republican alternative to the 
1994 reconciliation bill, and that got a big ``no.'' We got the Penny-
Kasich amendment, and that was ``no.'' We got the earthquake aid 
offset. That was a ``no.'' Got the balanced budget amendment, another 
``no.'' Republican fiscal year 1995 budget to reduce the deficit an 
additional $150 billion, and that was a ``no.'' And now we have the 
Exon-Grassley cuts saving $26 billion. I think that we need to have the 
courage to make this simple effort to reduce spending over 5 years.
  Last month many Members argued against a balanced budget amendment by 
stating that Congress should just have the fortitude to make the though 
choices and cut spending. Well, here is our chance. Support the motion 
to instruct.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, before I yield I would suggest to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, that a little less than a year 
ago we passed a $500 billion deficit reduction package which has 
actually resulted in deficit reduction of over $600 billion. That was 
voted ``yes'' by this side of the aisle, voted ``no'' by the other side 
of the aisle.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Gutierrez], and I also would inform the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] that we only have one speaker left.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today not to introduce a new 
idea, but simply to remind my colleagues of an old one--the idea that 
we have a deep and ongoing commitment to the veterans of our Armed 
Forces.
  As we are asked by some to consider cutting the budget even further, 
this notion should be kept not only in the back of our minds, but at 
the forefront of the argument.
  Members of the Veterans' Committee, like all Members of this House, 
have already made difficult choices in the name of deficit reduction. 
We have done so with care and attention.
  After all, that is what our veterans deserve--care and attention--
whether it comes from a VA doctor who stands by a veteran's bedside, or 
from a Member of Congress who stands at this lectern.
  Several distinguished veterans' groups have spoken out against 
further, unspecified cuts in the budget, like those proposed in a 
motion to instruct budget conferees. They know what less funding--in 
the amount of tens of millions of dollars--really means: It means less 
medical care for veterans, longer delays in the adjudication of claims, 
more lives at risk.
  Whatever districts we represent--conservative or liberal, wide-open 
farmland or a beautiful, big city like Chicago--all Members of this 
body share a common constituency: The men and women who put their lives 
on the line to protect this flag, and this institution.
  The budget is not simply about numbers. It is about the omen and 
women who served us. It is now time for us to serve them.
  We can do so by opposing the motion to instruct conferees and by 
supporting the budget passed by the House.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, my wife and I have two teenage daughters, 
and every day we go through the same battle with them. Will you clean 
your room? Yes, mom, yes, dad, we will clean it tomorrow.
  Well, tomorrow comes and we ask them about cleaning their room. Oh, 
yeah, dad, we will do it tomorrow.
  I have been a Member of this Chamber for 3 years, and during those 3 
years I have heard virtually every Member of this Chamber talk about 
cutting spending, and I have heard about half of them talk about 
cutting spending tomorrow. There are always a million reasons why we 
cannot cut spending, but it is time now to do it.
  I do not know who the author of the old saying was, ``Don't put off 
until tomorrow what you can do today,'' but it certainly speaks well of 
what we need to do today. Stand up and be counted, put the rhetoric 
aside, and let us cut spending today.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the majority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, members of the committee, I would rise 
to ask Members to vote against this motion, and I do it for the reason 
that we are now at a stage in our budget process where we have made 
important decisions.
  We have decided what the spending level will be last year, and we put 
into place caps, hard caps, with a hard freeze through the leadership 
of many people on our budget committees that we have convinced the 
financial markets are meaningful, and they are.
  To now come in with a motion to instruct that in essence says no, we 
did not mean what we passed in the budget, we want to do something 
different, is really trying to pass another budget. For the life of me, 
I cannot understand why we would want to make this what is allegedly 
called a small change.
  The problem with it is once again it is in the general. It is not in 
the specific. There is not a one of us that would answer the question, 
do you think we ought to cut spending, who would not say yes, in 
general. But then when it comes to the specific, whether it is defense, 
whether it is highway program, or whether it is some other part of the 
budget, that is when it gets tough. That is when getting the consensus 
together gets much more difficult.
  If we were not prepared in the budget to say where it would be, how 
are we prepared to say where it will be?
  Finally, all of us know that if we are going to make significant 
reductions in the budget, it is going to have to come in the area of 
entitlement growth. I think all of us belief that we have stringent 
caps in discretionary spending. Our problem in the future in getting 
this deficit down is in entitlement growth.
  So if we really want to do this, we have got to do it in the area of 
entitlement growth. That takes you to health care and Social Security. 
Health care is going to be before us, hopefully later this year, and 
hopefully we will do something significant in that area. I hope we can. 
The Social Security Commission came forward the other day and said they 
are going to have problems beginning in 2026. Maybe it is time to have 
problems beginning in 2026. Maybe it is time to have another Social 
Security Commission to look at where that problem is going and what 
needs to be done there. That is valuable suggestion. That is something 
that we ought to do.
  We also have a proposal for entitlement review, and that may be a way 
to put further pressure on that. I am for that.
  But to come in today and to say let us add another x number of 
billions, that may cut defense, may not cut defense; may cut domestic, 
may not cut domestic, really does not make any sense.
  I urge Members to vote against this motion. Let us go to conference. 
We have got our figure; the Senate has their figure. We are going to 
come in with a figure that probably is somewhere in between. We will 
live with that in discretionary spending. Let us get on with the 
process. Let us not vote for this motion. Let us get this budget done 
for this year, and move on and tackle the tough large problems that are 
out in front of us for the future.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, well, it is amazing, it is deja vu all over again. I 
wish the distinguished majority leader had been here when I opened. 
Because what I said is there is always a lot of good reasons to do 
nothing. Shouldn't cut now; well, you are not specific enough; well, 
you are too specific.
  I have two very interesting letters here. One is from the President 
of the United States, who wrote to me this week saying that we should 
not enact the Kasich-Penny motion because it is too general.
  Then I have in my hand a letter from November 19, 1993, from the same 
President of the United States, who writes to the Speaker opposing the 
Penny-Kasich motion. You know why? Because it was too specific.
  Now, which is it? Are we going to object to spending cuts because 
they are specific, or are we going to object to them because they are 
not specific? Or are we going to object to any spending cuts for any 
reason that serves us the day we are going to vote to cut?
  Now, when we passed the tax increase last year in this House, as 
opposed to the cut spending first plan that the Republicans offered on 
a bipartisan basis, Democrat leadership came to the floor and said, 
``This will not be the last time that we will cut spending. We will be 
back to do more. But this is all we can do at this point in time.''
  Yet every time we have come to the floor, the result has been, 
``Can't do it.'' ``It is too general.'' ``It is too specific.'' ``We 
have to wait for health care.'' There is always a reason why we cannot 
do it.
  I myself have great respect for the people on the Democrat side. In 
fact, this coalition includes Democrats. Why are we here? We are here 
because, first of all, we are not happy with the fact that in the out 
years, ladies and gentlemen, the deficits continue to go backup. And 
they continue to go back-up under a scenario that implies strong 
economic growth. And I will tell you that everybody who watches the 
financial markets today, we are all nervous. You wake up every day and 
you try to figure out whether the market is going up, or whether the 
market is going down, and what is the bond market doing, and what is 
the Fed going to do, and what is happening with interest rates. And it 
all gets down to economic growth in this country.
  Well, I want to tell you that the President said a couple weeks ago 
that whenever he puts a plan forward, the Republicans always say, and 
you might remember, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

                              {time}  1640

  Every time we bring a bipartisan effort to this floor to cut 
spending, be it specific or general, the seven times that we have 
brought significant spending cuts to this floor, the response from the 
President and the response from the majority in this Chamber has been 
no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
  What I would suggest is, today, let us break the pattern. Let us 
break the pattern and let us come to the floor and let us just say yes 
one time for one spending cut on a bipartisan basis so that we do not 
continue to risk the financial security of this Nation by refusing to 
break the gridlock created by this Washington establishment.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not 
going to solve the budget deficit, but do they know what it does, it 
creates momentum, momentum for change in this city. I urge Members to 
vote yes on the Kasich-Penny-Stenholm motion to reduce Federal spending 
for this country.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion 
to instruct conferees on the budget resolution for fiscal year 1995. 
The one-third of the Federal budget that is subject to annual 
appropriations is not the problem.
  For the first time since 1969, the House-passed budget resolution 
would result in spending less money in 1995 than in 1994--without even 
an adjustment for inflation. Thus, it should be absolutely clear that 
discretionary spending programs are not the cause of projected Federal 
deficits. Further reductions in these programs will place many programs 
of high priority to the American people at great risk.
  What is at risk? $700 million for Head Start is at risk. $517 million 
for the National Institutes of Health is at risk. $619 million to 
respond to the backlog of Social Security disability claims is at risk. 
$93 million for the Ryan White AIDS Program is at risk. The health and 
well-being of the American people is at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to leave the appropriations caps alone. Vote no 
on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. FAWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Kasich-
Penny-Stenholm motion to instruct House budget conferees to accept the 
additional $26.1 billion in spending reductions initiated by Senators 
Exon and Grassley. When I came to Congress 9 years ago, the national 
debt stood at $1.4 trillion, and the deficit stood at $185 billion. 
Despite all the much heralded deficit reduction proposals such as 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the 1990 budget agreement, and most recently the 
1993 Clinton tax bill, the national debt is currently $4.3 trillion, 
and even if all the promised spending cuts occur and projected tax 
revenues appear--which we know will not happen--we will still add $1.7 
trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years. During House 
consideration of the budget resolution earlier this year, Congressman 
Jerry Solomon, Fred Upton, and I offered a substitute amendment which 
would have balanced the budget over 5 years. The Solomon-Fawell-Upton 
proposal would have cut an additional $47 billion in fiscal year 1995 
alone. Regrettably, the House defeated our substitute and the 
substitute offered by Congressman Kasich, opting instead for a largely 
status quo budget without any additional deficit reduction.
  As the General Accounting Office reported in 1992, the current budget 
imbalance is unsustainable in the long term. The report states, ``the 
key question facing policymakers is not whether to undertake major 
deficit reduction, but when and how''. The report further stated that, 
``regardless of the approach that is chosen, prompt and meaningful 
action is essential. In the end, action is unavoidable. The longer it 
is delayed, the more painful, it will be.''
  While this report was issued prior to passage of the Clinton tax 
bill, its message is no less appropriate today. Those who would tell 
you that we are on the right path and that further deficit reduction 
should be delayed are dead wrong. While the deficit will decline over 
the next 2 years, it resumes an upward path beginning in 1997. 
Furthermore, even if all the proposed spending cuts occur, Federal 
outlays will increase by $334 billion over the next 5 years. Do not 
count on health care reform to produce additional deficit reduction. 
The Joint Economic Committee reports that the Clinton health care 
reform proposal could cost as much as $918 billion over 5 years, and 
the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the Clinton proposal will 
add to the deficit, not subtract from it.
  Madam Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that gross 
interest payments on the Federal debt will approach $300 billion this 
year, a figure larger than all Federal outlays 20 years ago. As 
interest payments continue to crowd out Federal programs, it will only 
force more programmatic cuts to balance the budget. We must not 
continue to delay meaningful action on the deficit. We owe it to our 
grandchildren, who will have to pay for our largess, to take this 
further step toward fiscal sanity. I urge all members to support the 
Kasich-Penny-Stenholm motion.
  Mr. PACKARD. Madam Speaker, today, this House faces yet another 
integrity test. This test involves matching our rhetoric to our 
actions. When it comes to cutting spending in the Federal budget, 
principle is routinely sacrificed to parcohial interests and pork 
projects. I fear once again, that the soundbites will again outweigh 
substance by as much as two-to-one. The odds on favorite in this budget 
battle is the status quo.
  My colleague Mr. Kasich is seeking to actually make real spending 
cuts. His motion to instruct budget conferees to accept the $26 billion 
in additional cuts included in the Senate version would be a first step 
in scaling back escalating Federal spending. The usual suspects have 
lined up against Mr. Kasich, Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Penny. The 
administration has engaged in what they called a full court press to 
defeat the motion. The Democratic leadership has been lobbying Members 
frantically and galvanizing forces outside Congress to kill the motion. 
Special interests who are supposedly threatened by deeper budget cuts 
will no doubt cry foul.
  We saw the same opponents of fiscal sanity when we debated the Penny/
Kasich proposal which would have resulted in one penny saved out of 
every Federal dollar spent over 5 years. Of course, the big spenders in 
Congress, backed by the administration, lined up a chorus of cries 
about the pain that would be inflicted on their favorite Government 
programs if Penny/Kasich passed. Of course the motion failed.
  We heard the same hysterical language about jeopardized national 
security and threats to everything from crime-fighting, education, and 
long-term economic growth if we passed a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. It is absolute anathema to the big spenders in 
Congress that their ability to spend other people's money exactly as 
they choose would be restricted.
  Spending cuts to the Federal budget have been the belle of the ball 
lately, the most popular idea for Members to trot out in front of 
constituents. But time after time, Congress only flirts with the 
possibility, refusing to take a turn on the dancefloor of fiscal 
sanity.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. MINGE. Madam Speaker, I will support the Penny-Kasich motion 
because I believe that we must continue to pursue options to reduce 
Federal spending and bring our Federal deficit under reasonable 
control.
  However, spending cuts must be part of a balanced approach. We need 
to look at all sides of deficit reduction, including the income side, 
or more accurately, the nonincome side.
  It would not be popular, and it may even be quite painful for many of 
my colleagues, but we must be even-handed in our deliberations on 
deficit reduction. It is not enough to recommend an arbitrary $26 
billion in cuts in discretionary programs--many of which have already 
felt the budget ax--while ignoring entitlement programs and the myriad 
provisions of the tax code through which the Federal Government makes 
tax expenditures by foregoing tax revenues. To eliminate the deficit, 
we need a military base closing commission approach. Everything should 
be on the table. Nothing is so sacred it cannot be considered. We even 
need to ask if tax free bonds are the fairest, most efficient way for 
the Federal Government to provide assistance to municipalities, 
localities and States.
  I believe that any meaningful examination of Federal revenues and 
expenditures must include close, unbiased analysis of the various means 
whereby we spend through the creation and continuation of programs and 
the authorization and appropriation of funds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Shepherd). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 216, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                               YEAS--202

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Blackwell
     Doolittle
     Fish
     Franks (CT)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Kaptur
     Lewis (CA)
     Murphy
     Quillen
     Ridge
     Roukema
     Thomas (CA)
     Washington

                              {time}  1703

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Lewis of California with Mr. Washington against.

  Mr. VALENTINE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. POMEROY, YOUNG of Alaska, and BLILEY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tucker). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Sabo, Gephardt, Kildee, 
Beilenson, Berman, Wise, Bryant, Stenholm, and Frank of Massachusetts, 
Ms. Slaughter, Kasich, McMillan, Kolbe, and Shays, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. 
Herger.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________