[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.
____________________