[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.

                          ____________________