[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
SUPPORT EXON-GRASSLEY
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this morning in the newspaper there were
reports of a leading Republican Senator saying that we ought to ditch
the Exon-Grassley amendment which cut $26 billion from the budget
resolution as it passed the House of Representatives and that he was
prepared to support that in conference, and that is in a sense what 60-
some Senators on three different occasions said on the floor of this
Senate in backing that cut, that that ought to be disregarded by the
conferees.
I am one of the conferees. I do not think so. I think we are on the
right track, and I hope that we can persuade a majority of our
colleagues on the Senate side on the conference to stick with the
Senate's position, and I hope that we can sell to the House conferees
what they were just about told to do on the floor of the Senate as a
motion to instruct those conferees came up with 14 votes which
instruction was that the House conferees ought to adopt the Senate's
position on the budget.
I think that we are hearing the Chicken Littles squawking, trying to
convince us all that the sky is falling, when they say all the bad
things that are going to happen if Exon-Grassley is adopted. They say
that it will be the end of civilization, or it seems like that is what
they are really trying to tell us.
I want my colleagues to remember that Exon-Grassley is not even a
real cut in the sense of we are going to be spending less money next
year than this year, and Senator Exon has very clearly and correctly
stated that earlier today. Domestic discretionary spending will
increase by about $112 billion over the next 5 years. The Exon-Grassley
amendment will just slightly limit this major increase in spending, but
it is the only ball game in town, if you want to do something about the
deficit, because otherwise it is a rubber stamping of the big spending
practices that are too usual on this hill.
I want to advise my colleagues not to get caught up in the shrill
cries of the Chicken Littles who are saying we need to cut mandatory
spending, not discretionary spending, to reduce the deficit. We need to
cut all spending, and this Senator voted to cut all spending when I
voted for the Lott amendment that was up during the budget resolution
debate.
Now others are saying that Exon-Grassley will hurt the economy. It
always seems to be the case that we hear the biggest whoppers the
closer we get to cutting spending.
So let us be honest about the ``Chicken Littles.'' I see them as the
usual big spenders, the people who are happy to overlook all the waste
and mismanagement in the budget. What they really want to do is protect
the usual sacred cows.
These big spenders are only caring about their next Government-funded
boondoggle. They are spenders who do not care that, because of our
rising national debt, our children and grandchildren born today or
those unborn will see lifetime tax rates of over 80 percent.
It is unconscionable to think that, with a national debt approaching
$6 trillion in a few years, we are looking at taking ``$26 billion
worth of points off the board,'' as my good friend, the Senator from
Texas, Phil Gramm, has said.
There are some on my side of the aisle who, I believe, have lost
sight of their deficit reduction compass, who, I believe, have fallen
into the trap that we so often do here inside the beltway, that
spending more for sacred cows is our primary purpose, that reducing the
deficit has somehow become now secondary.
Guess why we rarely lower the deficit on the Hill here? Because we
have reversed our priorities. Sacred cows have become more important
than deficit reduction. And the path of least resistance becomes
everyone getting their sacred cows fed at that trough. And that is what
feeds the deficit. What we sometimes forget is that with more people
feeding at the public trough, soon there will be no one to carry the
swill to that trough.
Is this so difficult to figure out? I have been around here since
1981 in this body and I think it was easy to figure out by 1982.
Everyone argues why their sacred cows must be fed, and, in the end, all
sacred cows are fed. That is how you get enough votes.
So another way to explain the rising tide of red ink in this country,
which Congress and its big spenders have created, is to understand it--
to paraphrase John F. Kennedy--as a rising tide that lifts all sacred
cows.
I know that many of my colleagues have heard horror stories about the
possible impact Exon-Grassley might have on defense spending. Remember,
the President has stated that he will not tolerate defense spending
being cut any further.
We should take the President at his word, and have him show the
leadership that is required of a Commander-in-chief. The President
should be a leader in his own party and work to ensure that the
appropriators provide sufficient funds for defense. And we should let
him know we will back up his veto of any further defense cuts.
I am confident that we can work to address the concerns of many of my
colleagues about defense during the appropriations process. But I
caution you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting
Exon-Grassley.
My colleagues have heard the authors of the amendment say that Exon-
Grassley does not and cannot specify defense cuts. There are plenty of
billions to be saved in nondefense spending. Senator Exon referred to
limiting the growth in the $112 billion that are set aside for the
President's domestic initiatives. CBO again has issued its annual
options book for deficit reduction, with tens of billions of dollars in
potential savings.
This is not a defense issue, Mr. President. It is a deficit reduction
issue. I cannot for the life of me understand why some on my side of
the aisle would want to split our ranks.
Coming out of the committee, Republicans were unified. It was the
other side that was split, because some of the more courageous among
their ranks, like Senators Exon, Conrad, Simon, and Lautenberg, felt
the President should have gone farther on deficit reduction.
And then, all of a sudden, the Chicken Littles came out of the
woodwork, squawking about all of the cuts coming out of defense.
Well, Mr. President, I do not think it is a very complicated matter.
My little grandson even knows how to respond to Chicken Little when he
shouts that the sky is falling.
My colleagues should know that many grassroots organizations support
the Exon-Grassley amendment, and the number is growing and support is
growing for cutting the deficit. Too bad; at the grassroots of America
they understand the problem better than we do here.
Three important additions to this list have recently been made in
support of Exon-Grassley: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and United We Stand America have all come
out in the last few days in support of this last-ditch effort, the only
ball game in town, to say ``no'' to business as usual and to say,
``Yes, we recognize there is a problem. We ought to do something about
it. This may not be enough, but it is better than nothing, and so let
us do it.''
All of these groups and the millions and millions of taxpaying
Americans that they represent will be watching this conference on the
budget between the House and the Senate very, very closely. They
support the deficit hawks in Congress and will not tolerate the smoke-
and-mirror games that the big spenders in Congress love to play when it
comes to cutting spending.
The American taxpayers will not accept conferees sharply reducing the
Exon-Grassley cuts and putting off the remaining cuts in the outyears.
They know all about those games and those games cannot be covered up.
Those who would reverse themselves on Exon-Grassley and abandon the
Senate position in conference are undercutting all their rhetoric we
heard last winter against the President's budget.
Remember? We heard how the President's budget did not address the
out-year deficits. The Exon-Grassley amendment takes a small step
toward that problem. So to now do a reversal, it means that my
colleagues would be accepting the same higher deficits that they
earlier had decried. What a supreme irony that would be.
The American people want real deficit cuts to be made--and that
requires cuts in spending--and they want it now. They realize that it
is the future of their children and their grandchildren that is at
stake. They will be watching what we do in conference closely and then
subsequently here on the floor.
I thank Senator Exon for his leadership. Without him, this would not
have been possible to accomplish.
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks just made by my distinguished colleague and friend next door in
the State of Iowa. He is a Republican and I am a Democrat, but we have
worked in a bipartisan fashion on many, many things over the years; not
always agreeing, of course. But I have great respect for Chuck
Grassley, and I thank him for his invaluable help. Without his
participation in this bipartisan approach to begin to do something to
get us on a glidepath to a balanced budget, we would not be in the
position that we are in today.
I thought we were in a fairly strong position, but I want to report
to the Senate now as to what is going on.
Before I do that, let me simply say that the leadership and the
dedication and the determination of Chuck Grassley is quite obvious by
three articles that appeared in the last few days that back up the
statements that the Senator from Iowa has made with regard to what is
going on--or not going on, depending on your point of view--in the
present conference between the House and the Senate.
I would like to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks on this subject the National Journal's Congress Daily/A.M. of
April 20, 1994, entitled ``Sasser May Have Budget Deal In Works''; an
article in the April 21, 1994, Washington Post headed, ``Sen. Domenici
Abandons Additional Spending Cuts,'' subheadlined, ``Defection Imperils
Bid to Trim $26 Billion''; and then a third item that I would like to
have printed is from the April 21 Wall Street Journal, headlined,
``Domenici Backs Clinton's Budget Plan, Angering Some in GOP With
Reversal.''
I ask unanimous consent to have all three of those articles printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. EXON. The most interesting part of all of these headlines is
``Domenici Backs Clinton Budget Plan.''
Well, that is a first, I think the record will show, for the ranking
Republican on the Budget Committee. Certainly, he has a right to his
views and I do not challenge that. But I do challenge the fact that,
from the reports that I have received from the meeting of the Budget
Committee yesterday, and I received this from a House Member who was
there--about the first thing that happened was, according to my friend,
the Member of the House of Representatives, was that Domenici threw in
the towel by announcing--almost before the meeting got started, or
shortly thereafter--that he would be willing, if the conference
committee would restore the $20-some billion cuts in Exon-Grassley,
that he, Domenici, would support and vote for the Clinton budget.
Of course, what he was referring to, for the record, is that the
conference report, whatever it is, is going to have to come back to the
Senate and back to the House of Representatives to be voted on.
Indeed, at the present time there is a whip count going on, at least
on the Democratic side and I suspect on the Republican side, as to how
many people would vote for the conference report if it came back absent
the $26 billion in cuts passed through the Senate Budget Committee and
accepted on the floor of the Senate. Senator Grassley has made eloquent
statements on that. I will go on with that further.
Let me take up another matter on this that I think needs
straightening out. Because I must tell my colleagues in all candor that
there is a grandiose plan or scheme, headed by no less than the
President of the United States--maybe he is misinformed--to misconstrue
the effects of the Exon-Grassley cut. In the first place, the President
of the United States in a letter dated April 11, 1994--this letter, a
copy of which I have, was directed to Representative Kasich, the
ranking Republican on the Budget Committee on the House side who is a
supporter of the Exon-Grassley cuts. I wanted to quote from that
letter, signed by the President.
The President says:
* * * the unallocated additional discretionary cuts
contained in the Senate resolution pose a direct threat to
two vulnerable areas of the budget which are essential to our
country's future: the defense budget and our programs of
investment in long-term growth.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of these cuts
on the military. The additional cuts would almost inevitably
result in reduction in defense funds. Any significant
reduction in defense spending below the levels that I have
requested would make it impossible to fund adequately the
multi-year investments in the force structure, in
modernization, and readiness that I approved in the Bottom-Up
Review.
Following up that alarming statement by the President, that I think
is without basis in fact, at least the way the sponsors of the Exon-
Grassley amendment intended this--and I will talk on that a little bit
later--there is a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This went to
several people, as I understand it. But the copy of the letter that I
have was addressed to the Honorable Jim Sasser, chairman of the Budget
Committee, dated 13 April 1994. This letter is signed by John M.
Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; W.A. Owens, Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gordon R. Sullivan, general, Chief of
Staff U.S. Army; Frank B. Kelso, II, admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval
Operations.
That is the individual we had considerable discussion about
yesterday, for whom I led the support.
Merrill A. McPeak, general, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; and C.E.
Mundy, Jr., general, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Incidentally, it indicates on the bottom of this letter:
Copy to: Pete Domenici, Ranking Minority Member; Senator
Sam Nunn; Senator Strom Thurmond; Senator Daniel K. Inouye;
and Senator Ted Stevens.''
This place is being called now, and we are talked to by officers,
even those stationed overseas--calling Members of this body, sounding
the alarm. I would only say, if the Commander in Chief of the United
States and the Chiefs of Staff that operate under him have been misled,
to sound such a false alarm as this, then I am concerned. I think there
are few in this body who have stood up time and time again in support
of the national defense of the United States of America. I take a back
seat to no one on that. Certainly, the President, and the Joint Chiefs,
and the chairman have every right to express their views about military
matters.
I say to the President and I say to the Joint Chiefs and the
chairman, that they are wrong on this matter as far as the intent of
Senators Exon and Grassley is concerned. And they have fallen into a
trap that has been carefully laid and the attempt is now being made to
slam it shut on the chance to eliminate an additional $26 billion in
spending.
I have deep respect for the President and all the members of the
Joint Chiefs. But having that respect, I still have the courage to
stand up and say when I think they are wrong and why. And why is that?
Let me first say I alluded to this, this morning, when I addressed
this subject. Senator Grassley alluded to it a few moments ago when he
talked about this matter. The Clinton budget --and the Presiding
Officer and all the Members of the U.S. Senate and all of the Members
of the House of Representatives and all the people of the United States
should understand--included many cuts in a wide variety of programs.
The budget, however, also includes many increases which we do not hear
much about. These increases are labeled, as they have been labeled in
the past, ``investments,'' by the administration.
The best way to identify, I suggest, where the Clinton budget shows
increases is to look, as we did--when I speak of ``we,'' I am talking
about my friend, Chuck Grassley from Iowa, and myself and our staffs--
the best way to identify where the budget shows increases is to look at
the figures as provided by the Senate Budget Committee before markup.
Those figures compare the Clinton budget to a freeze in budget
authority. The $26 billion in the Exon-Grassley amendment was computed
in the same fashion.
The table that I will put in the Record again, after having put it in
this morning--and by the way, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that that table be printed at the conclusion of my remarks on this
subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
letters I have referenced in my remarks from the President and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs be printed in the Record at the conclusion
of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this table shows where the $113 billion--my
friend from Iowa said $112 billion; it is $113 billion--shows that
these show up on the discretionary add-ons in the President's
functional totals, and they exclude defense.
Defense is not on the list in the table that I am showing because
Senator Grassley and I did not plan, nor are we suggesting, that the
cuts come from defense. Defense is not on the list, I emphasize once
again, Mr. President, primarily because we did not get a 5-year total
comparing defense spending against the budget freeze, as we did on the
add-ons or investments of $113 billion in the President's budget.
The quarrel then that the President of the United States and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have with regard to reduction in defense
spending does not fall to the responsibility of Senator Grassley,
Senator Exon, or their amendment or those who supported it.
Clearly, as I said this morning, clearly as Senator Grassley said a
few moments ago, we are suggesting that this $26 billion come out of
that $113 billion increase over 5 years in the President's program, a
reduction--not totally in half--a reduction of about one-fourth.
Therefore, I suggest that President Clinton and the Joint Chiefs and
all the officers under their command who are responding to the call and
trying to bring pressure to bear on the conferees to eliminate what the
Senate voted on--the $26 billion in cuts--their argument is with the
appropriators. They are the ones who make the final determination under
the law and under the budget law that runs and controls the Budget
Committee.
Most of the people who have joined in with the President and the
Joint Chiefs on this matter are on the Appropriations Committee. Some
of them are also on the Budget Committee. They can, if they want to, do
what Chuck Grassley and Jim Exon want, and that is to reduce the
President's initiative to make this cut in spending. Or they can
fulfill their self-fulfilling prophecy and projection because they do
not want the cut.
Of course, if they want to, they can do that, and it would be the
Appropriations Committee that is going against the will of the
President and the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Let us set the record straight. It does not have to come out of
defense. In my opinion, it should not come out of defense. But I say
that properly comes under the authority of the Appropriations
Committee, and they can do it if they want to.
Therefore, I will simply say that I hope we have begun to straighten
out some of the misconceptions that have been built to try to eliminate
the $26 billion reductions in expenditures as recommended by the
Senator from Iowa and by the Senator from Nebraska. I hope we can get
the record straight.
That is the end of my comment on this matter. I am going to speak
briefly with regard to the amendment before us on Bosnia.
Exhibit 1
[From National Journal's Congress Daily, Apr. 20, 1994]
Sasser May Have Budget Deal In Works
With the House-Senate conference on the FY95 budget
resolution set to begin this morning, Senate Budget Chairman
Sasser Tuesday said ``in all likelihood'' he would make a
proposal on how to deal with the $26 billion spending cut
that is in the Senate's budget blueprint but not the House's.
However, a top Budget Committee aide later said Sasser had no
plans to make a compromise offer on the $26 billion cut when
opening statements are made in a public session of the
conference at 10 a.m. It was less clear what Sasser might be
prepared to say in private talks that will take place
sometime after today's public session. ``We have not reached
a point where we're talking about that,'' the Budget aide
said. ``Nothing definitive has been discussed yet.'' The aide
said Sasser ``has nothing to offer'' House Budget Chairman
Sabo today in the form of a compromise, adding ``there's no
agreement about what we're going to do'' about the difference
between the two houses on the five-year $26 billion
discretionary spending cut.
Sources earlier said Sasser was preparing a proposal that
involved ``splitting of the difference'' on the $26 billion
cut and limiting the impact of the FY95 cut to less than the
level called for in the spending cut amendment by Sens. James
Exon, D-Neb., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that was
originally adopted in the Budget Committee. But the Budget
aide denied Sasser would make such a proposal. Sasser Tuesday
said even though he opposes the $26 billion cut, he will
``stick steadfastly with the Senate's position'' in favor of
it. ``I think it's very doubtful the full $26 billion [cut]
can be restored,'' Sasser said. ``I'm not sure how a majority
of our conferees line up on it.'' Asked if the conference
would likely split the difference with the House, Sasser
replied, ``Traditionally, that's where these things end up.''
Sen. Ernest Hollings. D-S.C.--one of three Senate
Democratic budget conferees along with Sasser and Sen. J.
Bennett Johnston, D-La.--said he ``would favor the House
position'' of no extra budget cuts. Johnston, Sasser and
Hollings all voted against the $26 billion cut during the
Budget panel markup.
Senate Budget ranking member Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and
Grassley are believed to be split over the $26 billion cut,
with Domenici now opposed to it even though he supported it
in committee and co-author Grassley backing it.
Asked Tuesday if he would have a problem if the entire $26
billion cut was dropped from the final version of the budget
resolution. Senate Minority Leader Dole said: ``It's fine
with me. It's all going to come out of defense'' if the cut
survives.
Meanwhile, Sabo Tuesday said he has no compromise to offer
Sasser on the issue and hopes the Senate will drop the extra
cuts. ``I'm waiting for the Senate to see the error of their
ways and reverse'' Sabo said. ``I'm a patient person.''
And Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., a House budget conferee,
said he hoped ``upon examination they [senators] would see
the consequences'' of such a cut and back off. ``I think they
made a significant error in what they did and didn't really
look at the consequences,'' Kildee contended.
Possibly complicating matters on how the conference will
deal with the $26 billion cut is Sasser's expected candidacy
for Senate majority leader to replace retiring Majority
Leader Mitchell.
Budget sources said Sasser may not want to anger Exon--the
co-sponsor of the $26 billion cut and a possible Sasser
supporter in the race for majority leader--by working to
eliminate the entire cut from the final budget resolution.
In addition, if Sasser were to become majority leader, Exon
would probably become Budget Committee chairman in the next
Congress. Hollings and Johnston, who are ahead of Exon in
Budget panel seniority, already head other committees.
____
[From National Journal's Congress Daily, Apr. 20, 1994]
Senator Domenici Abandons Additional Spending Cuts--Defection Imperils
Bid To Trim $26 Billion
(By Eric Pianin)
The Senate's drive for $26 billion more in spending savings
over the next five years suffered a devastating setback
yesterday when the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget
Committee declared at a bargaining session with the House
that he now favors eliminating the cuts because they would
adversely affect the nation's defenses.
Sen. Pete V. Domenici's (R-N.M.) declaration caught
Democrats and other Republicans by surprise and greatly
strengthened the hand of House Democratic leaders opposed to
additional cuts in domestic or defense programs beyond what
Congress and President Clinton have agreed to.
The Senate last month approved a bipartisan plan for the
additional savings in discretionary spending programs as part
of the 1995 budget resolution, despite warnings from Senate
Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) and White
House officials that the reductions would jeopardize the
economic recovery and undermine U.S. defenses.
Domenici said yesterday he is worried that most of the cuts
would be made in defense programs. Domenici, who had
supported the cuts in committee, said when the budget reached
the Senate floor that he had made a mistake and sought
unsuccessfully to amend it to spare defense by targeting
entitlement programs for most of the cuts. The House,
meanwhile, approved a budget resolution with none of the
additional cuts, and House Democratic leaders indicated they
would resist Senate efforts to preserve the cuts in the
compromise resolution.
Sasser had said that, given the breadth of Democratic and
GOP support for the savings, he had no choice but to insist
that the House accept some of the proposed cuts. But he told
reporters that Domenici's statement had put ``a new spin'' on
negotiations.
Sasser's problem is that he cannot abandon the $26 billion
in cuts unless he is certain there would be sufficient votes
to approve the budget resolution on final passage. Senate
aides estimated that Sasser would lose eight to 10 Democratic
votes without the additional spending cuts. Domenici would
have to come up with eight to 10 Republican votes to offset
the Democratic losses.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 21, 1994]
Domenici Backs Clinton's Budget Plan, Angering Some in GOP With
Reversal
(By John Harwood)
Washington--Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, angering some of
his GOP colleagues, said he will oppose additional cuts in
federal discretionary spending and will back the outlines of
President Clinton's $1.5 trillion 1995 budget.
The surprise move by Mr. Domenici, the ranking Republican
on the Senate Budget Committee, came at the start of House-
Senate negotiations over differences in budget resolutions
passed by the two chambers. The principal difference is an
extra $26 billion in discretionary-spending cuts over five
years. The Senate approved the cuts over the objections of
Democratic leaders and the White House, who worry that they
would squeeze both the defense budget and the president's
domestic initiatives.
Mr. Domenici had joined a bipartisan coalition of senators
in approving the extra cuts during Budget Committee
deliberations, but said he concluded he had ``made a
mistake'' because the cuts would squeeze Pentagon spending
too much. The New Mexico Republican tried unsuccessfully on
the Senate floor to shift most of the cuts from discretionary
programs, for which Congress makes annual appropriations, to
federal benefit programs such as Medicare, which many
analysts consider the most important contributors to the
budget deficit.
His new position scrambles prospects for House-Senate
negotiations and leaves senators of both parties counting
votes. Abandonment of the $26 billion in additional cuts
would cause some deficit-minded Democrats to oppose the
budget resolution, which serves as a blueprint for overall
federal spending levels. It also raises the curious prospect
of Mr. Domenici's rounding up GOP votes to help Democratic
leaders pass the resolution. Of course, negotiators could yet
end up splitting the difference between the House and Senate
positions, as many lawmakers have predicted for several
weeks.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R. Iowa), who co-sponsored the
additional cuts with Sen. James Exon (D., Neb.), blasted Mr.
Domenici's position as a blow to Republican efforts to
recapture the political high ground on spending issues. ``Our
position has been undercut,'' the Iowan said, calling it
``the most devastating move by our party's leadership since
George Bush moved his lips.''
``What a crock,'' responded Mr. Domenici, adding that he
would continue to challenge Mr. Clinton's spending priorities
in the appropriations process. The spat creates a new
headache for Senate GOP leader Robert Dole of Kansas. Though
Mr. Dole shares Mr. Domenici's concern that further
discretionary-spending cuts would hit defense, he will come
under strong pressure from the Republican caucus to oppose
the budget resolution whether or not the extra cuts are
included.
____
Exhibit 2
Discretionary spending increases in the 1995 budget--1995-99
[Compared to a freeze; in outlays]
Millions
FUNCTION 150--INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Foreign Aid................................................... $1,327
Conduct of Foreign Affairs.................................... 1,143
FUNCTION 250--GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
NASA.......................................................... 482
National Science Foundation................................... 1,124
FUNCTION 270--ENERGY
Energy Conservation........................................... 1,469
Energy Information and Policy................................. 69
FUNCTION 300--NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
EPA Operations................................................ 1,557
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................ 247
NRCS Conservation Programs.................................... 284
EPA Water Infrastructure...................................... 396
FUNCTION 350--AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency........................................... 4,702
Departmental Administration................................... 956
FUNCTION 370--COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT
NIST.......................................................... 2,692
Bureau of Census.............................................. 1,632
SEC Salaries and Expenses..................................... 1,326
SBA Business Loan Program Account............................. 620
International Trade Administration............................ 65
FUNCTION 400--TRANSPORTATION
Transit Capital Grants........................................ 1,679
Federal-aid Highways.......................................... 11,095
High Speed Rail............................................... 117
Amtrak........................................................ 936
Coast Guard Construction...................................... 283
FUNCTION 450--COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Project-based Community Development Grants.................... 612
Colonias Assistance Program................................... 330
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund............. 379
Economic Development Loans.................................... 143
Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements....................... 426
FUNCTION 500--EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Education Reform.............................................. 3,881
Education for the Disadvantaged............................... 3,970
School Improvement Program.................................... 1,148
Special Education............................................. 727
Training and Employment Services.............................. 4,800
Children and Family Services.................................. 8.044
National Service.............................................. 3,032
FUNCTION 550--HEALTH SERVICES AND RESEARCH
National Institutes of Health................................. 6,150
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services.................... 1,310
Health Resources and Services Administration.................. 896
FUNCTION 570--MEDICARE
Medicare Administration....................................... 344
FUNCTION 600--INCOME SECURITY
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program..................... 1,722
Supplemental Security Income.................................. 1,254
State Nutrition Programs...................................... 27
Farmers Home Administration Rental Assistance................. 307
Homeless Housing Assistance................................... 1,494
HOPE.......................................................... 166
Youthbuild.................................................... 152
FUNCTION 700--VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES
Medical Care.................................................. 5,684
General Operating Expenses.................................... 62
FUNCTION 750--ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Crime Control Fund............................................ 17,516
FBI........................................................... 196
Immigration and Naturalization Service........................ 514
U.S. Attorneys................................................ 162
Legal Services Corporation.................................... 488
Judicial Branch............................................... 1,948
Federal Prison Operations..................................... 5,142
FUNCTION 800--GENERAL GOVERNMENT
General Services Administration............................... 2,272
IRS Administration............................................ 304
IRS Information Systems....................................... 3,016
Federal Drug Control Programs................................. 294
---------
Total increases (billions).............................. 113.1
Source: 1995 Senate Budget Committee markup materials.
Exhibit 3
The White House,
Washington, April 11, 1994.
Hon. John R. Kasich,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kasich: As you and your colleagues
consider the Fiscal Year 1995 budget resolution in
conference, I urge you to support the level of discretionary
spending cuts that is reflected in the House budget
resolution and to oppose the additional cuts proposed in the
Senate resolution.
The discretionary spending levels contained in the House
resolution reflect the hard freeze on outlays that was such
an important part of last year's budget, which produced
nearly $108 billion in savings over five years, and which is
forcing extremely difficult choices upon both the
Administration and the Congress. Indeed the budget I proposed
would cut some 300 existing programs and terminate 115. With
this hard freeze already forcing significant spending cuts,
the unallocated additional discretionary cuts contained in
the Senate resolution pose a direct threat to two vulnerable
areas of the budget which are essential to our country's
future: the defense budget and our program of investments in
long-term growth.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of these cuts
on our military. The additional cuts would almost inevitably
result in reductions in defense funds. Any significant
reduction in defense spending below the levels I have
requested would make it impossible to fund adequately the
multi-year investments in the force structure, modernization,
and readiness that I approved in the Bottom-Up Review. As I
said in my State of the Union Address, we must draw the line
against further defense cuts. Our military must be the best
equipped, the best trained, and the best prepared in the
world. Those on both sides of the aisle who join me in that
commitment should support my budget as embodied in the House
resolution.
Similarly, the cuts in the Senate resolution pose a
significant threat to our investments in education, training,
research, technology, and crime-fighting that are critical to
long-term economic growth and the well-being of America's
families. These investments have already been trimmed
significantly to conform to the hard freeze. Significant
further reductions would seriously damage our efforts to
provide more and higher-paying jobs today and in the future,
to train today's workers and educate our children to perform
those jobs, and to fight the plague of violent crime in our
cities and towns.
The 1995 budget I submitted reduces the Federal deficit by
40 percent and provides for three consecutive years of
decline in the deficit for the first time in nearly a half-
century. I am convinced that the careful path of deficit
reduction we agreed upon last year is a critical factor in
the stable, noninflationary economic growth we are now
experiencing. The level of additional cuts proposed in the
Senate resolution poses a threat to our national security and
to needed investments in our economic future. I urge you to
support the level of cuts reflected in the House
discretionary spending levels.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
____
The Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
Hon. Jim Sasser,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Your support is requested in defending
the President's Budget during the upcoming Budget Resolution
conference. We believe the Senate version, as presently
written, could have detrimental implications for the
Department of Defense and our national security. The
President's Budget reflects the right balance of strategy,
force structure, and resources. Major resources reductions
would make the strategy unexecutable and would destroy this
balance.
We have previously testified that the budget is acceptable,
but it constitutes the minimum required to reach the
necessary levels of force structure and readiness.
Additionally, current funding is adequate only if we are
successful in achieving savings through acquisition and
financial reform and infrastructure reductions. Any
significant reductions from the President's Budget would
degrade our modernization and readiness, leading to a hollow
force.
Modernization has already been limited to the point where
additional reductions will prevent us from taking full
advantage of promising technologies and limit our ability to
recapitalize the forces outlined in the Bottom-Up Review.
Further reductions in modernization funding will cause delays
in system upgrades and modifications and affect our ability
to maintain key warfighting assets by the end of the decade.
We are vitally concerned about the eroding quality of life
for those who serve our great Nation. Not only is military
readiness at risk, but we are already experiencing
difficulties in recruiting and retaining high-quality
personnel. Our Service men and women deserve better.
We recognize the magnitude of the current fiscal challenges
but strongly believe that it is essential for the United
States to maintain a capable and ready force able to execute
a sound military strategy. We urge your support of the FY
1995 President's Defense Budget Request to achieve our
national security objectives.
A similar letter has been sent to the House Budget
Committee.
Sincerely,
John M. Shalikashvili,
Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gordon R. Sullivan,
General, USA,
Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.
Merrill A. McPeak,
General, USAF,
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.
W.A. Owens,
Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Frank B. Kelso II,
Admiral, USN,
Chief of Naval Operations.
C.E. Mundy, Jr.,
General, USMC,
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
____________________