[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 101 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4649, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
    APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995; AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL 
                APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4649) making appropriations for the 
government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Strickland). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                motion to instruct offered by mr. walsh

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

       Mr. Walsh of New York moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the bill H.R. 4649, be instructed to insist 
     on the House position on amendment numbered 16, reducing the 
     D.C. budget by $150 million.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, do we have the right to close debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The proponents of the motion will have the 
right to close the debate.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to instruct conferees to 
hold the House position in conference.
  The Senate is requiring the District to cut $75 million from its 
budget, and is cutting $20 million from the Federal payment. In my 
opinion, this position does not effectively address the systemic 
problem of overspending.
  The House, in a bipartisan compromise, is requiring the District to 
cut $150 million from its budget. The compromise also stipulates that 
if the 1995 cash spending and outlays exceed the cash receipt, the 
Federal payment for 1996 will be reduced by the amount that the 
District overspent. In addition, the District must provide quarterly 
reports of revenues and spending.
  I remind my colleagues of the GAO audit on the District of Columbia 
finances which revealed gross overspending by District agencies--a 
clear violation of the Anti-Deficit Spending Act.
  GAO reported that:

       Although in 1991 the District received permission to borrow 
     $331 million in general obligation bonds, and another $100 
     million more from Congress, its cash position has declined by 
     $200 million since then;
       The District will finish 1995 with a minimum cash 
     deficiency of $21 million. The report also suggests the 
     possibility of a $200 million deficit in 1995 if changes in 
     spending practices and real cuts are not made;
       Mayor Kelly claims to have cut employment by 17 percent. 
     However, payroll costs continue to rise. Also, the Mayor made 
     a conscious decision not to make the pension payment this 
     year, forcing a raid of the fund. While an agreement has been 
     reached, the Mayor's initial refusal to pay has cost 
     taxpayers an additional $13 million in interest.

  The District of Columbia must get its fiscal house in order. The law 
states that they must present balanced budgets to the Congress, and 
they have not.

  I mentioned--in a 1991 supplemental request, the District asked for 
and received an additional $103 million to balance its budget;
  In 1992, $28 million was transferred out of the water and sewer fund 
to the general fund to balance the books;
  In 1993, the District changed its property tax year to get five 
quarters. This act of budget gimmicking directly impacted the Federal 
formula payment. We paid them roughly $37 million more this year.

  In 1994 the refusal to make pension payment.
  In 1995--the District will receive $668 million in Federal payment, 
$52 million directly to the pension fund and $770 million in direct 
grants. This means the District is receiving a total of $1.5 billion in 
Federal moneys. Surely a cut of $150 million, less than 5 percent of 
the total DC appropriations is reasonable.
  The House has acted responsibly given the condition and financial 
state of the Nation's capital. The House bill passed by a very narrow 
margin--213 to 210--3 votes.
  If we do not hold to the House position, there is no guarantee that 
the D.C. conference report will pass. I for one will not support it.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate that the motion to instruct that 
my ranking Member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] is asking 
for is the result of an agreement that I entered into in connection 
with an amendment I offered on behalf of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Certainly, I cannot disagree with many of the statements that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] made about the District government. 
There is an admission by everyone that the District is in a dire 
financial crisis, and that something has to be done, that is, mainly 
spending cuts.
  We all know that as the appropriation bills pass through this House 
and as the Senate passes their appropriation bills, we then go to 
conference. That is where we iron out the details. I think everyone in 
this House wants to see the financial condition of the District improve 
so that they can get on their feet in fiscal year 1995. I just disagree 
with the gentleman when he says that surely $150 million is reasonable, 
because I do not know for a fact that it is reasonable. I know the 
Senate has cut the Federal payment, which I feel very strongly about, 
by $20 million, and I know their mark is below us in the fact that they 
have cut $80 million in spending, that is, $75 million in unspecified 
spending, and $5 million for the law school.
  Because of this crisis, I think it is entirely inappropriate for us 
at this moment to say what the exact amount of the cut should be. I 
assure the gentleman from New York that emotionally and psychologically 
I am with him, but to just pick a figure at this point when we have to 
negotiate with the Senate is, I think, not entirely appropriate. I do 
not know how anyone can say at this moment what the reasonable figure 
is. I agree there should be spending cuts, but I do not think there is 
any magic number. It may turn out to be more than that, but I doubt it. 
The District is now working on a plan, and I think we have a 
responsibility to examine the plan the Mayor sends us, although I 
agree, and I think the House agrees, that the District has to curtail 
its spending. But it is just wrong for us to pick out an arbitrary 
figure of $150 million, which is a ball park guess that was made as the 
bill was moving through the process.
  We are not getting down to the nuts and bolts of this matter. We are 
all together on the issue, but I do not think we should just 
arbitrarily pick a figure and say that it is $150 million and that is 
it. I ask the Members to give us more flexibility. We have to work with 
the Senate, and it is not an exact science.
  I assure the gentleman that I am for the survival of the District 
financially, and to me that means a cut in their spending, but we do 
need more flexibility in the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this time to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], who has been very cooperative in 
this matter, and I hope the Members will allow us some flexibility. We 
are all operating on good faith here. We are all saying that spending 
cuts have to be made. I just think that now is not the time to put in 
concrete any particular number.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond briefly to the comments of my distinguished colleague regarding 
the House position.
  This number of $150 million was arrived at through some very, very 
serious and hard bargaining. It was not arrived at arbitrarily, 
although the numbers bounded around a little bit. I think most of us 
agree that based on what we could accomplish, that was the right 
number. It is less than 5 percent of the total District of Columbia 
appropriation, and I think it is reasonable by any measure.
  For us to realize that we are only able to pass this appropriation 
bill by three votes and then to go back and agree we are flexible when 
we go to conference, I think, belies the fact that this barely passed 
the House of Representatives, and if we change that figure again, I am 
very concerned that this bill will not pass.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of Mr. Walsh's motion to 
instruct conferees to support the House language in the D.C. 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. It is imperative that 
Congress preserve the House version of the appropriations bill for the 
District. I do not believe it is necessary to remind Members that this 
bill passed by the slimmest of margins earlier this month and that the 
one undisputed reason for its passage with the compromise that was so 
carefully crafted by very concerned Members of this body including Mr. 
Dixon, Mr. Walsh, and myself. Without the compromise to require $150 
million in spending cuts from the District's budget, I believe it is 
safe to say that this bill would not have passed. The importance of 
maintaining the integrity of this compromise cannot be overemphasized.
  The Senate-passed version includes $75 million in spending cuts and a 
$20 million lower Federal payment. But don't be deceived by even these 
provisions of the Senate's bill. The Senate version does not include 
the House language regarding overspending. The House version requires 
that if the city overspends in fiscal year 1995, the fiscal year 1996 
Federal payments will be decreased by the amount of the city's 
overspending. The Senate plainly failed to include this protection 
against overspending and impose any strict penalty for expending more 
than it takes in once again.
  Unquestionably, the Senate version fails drastically short of what I 
believe is the only responsible thing that Congress can do in light of 
the District's current financial situation. This body has heard a great 
deal of discussion about the General Accounting Office's recent report 
on the city's finances. We have also heard about the city's impending 
need for financial assistance from someone or somewhere, and about the 
failure of the city to respond to congressional employed to balance the 
budget and defer statutorily required payments, with examples of 
underestimating expenses and overestimating revenue projections, and 
with accounts of violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which have 
resulted in the city spending more than was provided in the 
appropriations bill year after year.

  GAO has stated that if no action is taken, the deficit in fiscal year 
1995 alone could be over $200 million. The long-term outlook for the 
city is even bleaker. The deficit by the year 2000 is predicted to be 
$742 million. That amount is at least $50 million more than the Federal 
payment for next year and represents about 20 percent of the city's 
budget for next year as well. The city has no alternative but to make 
some drastic changes in how and where it spends its money because it 
simply does not have enough resources to continue with the financial 
management system that has lead the city down this very perilous road 
toward financial ruin.
  As I have indicated, the Senate version clearly cannot adequately 
address these problems. However, the House-passed version of this bill 
contains a number of very important provisions. The House requires the 
city to make $150 million in spending cuts and to report to the 
Congress as to the nature of these cuts. The House also does not abuse 
the sensitive provisions of the home rule charter and does not involve 
Congress in micromanaging the city's budget. It does, however, 
recognize that there is a serious problem with the manner in which this 
budget was drafted. Before Congress can responsibly pass an 
appropriations bill for the city, we must feel satisfied with the 
reliability of the numbers used in the preparation of this budget. 
clearly, without at least this $150 million in spending cuts, the 
reality of the city staying within the guidelines of this budget are 
virtually nonexistent.
  And let me repeat my warning to every Member of Congress. There is no 
question that the District will be seeking additional Federal funds. 
The Mayor has already begun to circulate a plan which is heavily 
dependent upon assistance from the Federal Government. Quite simply, we 
cannot pledge one more penny of taxpayers' money without demanding the 
discipline that will be required by the House position. The Senate's 
version merely calls for half as much. Clearly this is not adequate.
  Congress has given enough. The citizens of this great city have given 
enough. It is time for the city to give Congress a reason to pass an 
appropriations that will genuinely reflect the true financial situation 
of the city. I believe that can only be done if we stand by the House-
passed version and insist that Congress demand more accountability from 
the city. I also believe that there is strong sentiment in the Senate 
to support the House language. By insisting on the House position, I 
believe that we can prevail in conference and get a budget to the 
President as quickly as possible. We need to give the District as much 
time as we can to rework its budget before the new fiscal year begins. 
We certainly recognize the fact that the Mayor of the District is 
working on changes that reflect some of Congress' specifications and we 
deeply appreciate this. It is imperative that the Council join in those 
efforts quickly. It will take leadership to meet the challenge. It will 
take cooperation to find the solution.
  Unnecessary delays in the conference and movement toward final 
passage will not help the District. If we do not maintain the House 
position, there may be even worse consequences. I urge your support of 
Mr. Walsh's motion to instruct the conferees to insist on this language 
and to require the city to do everything it can to get its fiscal house 
in order.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. DIXON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, just let me read to you the motion that I made, or a 
part thereof. I asked that we would disagree to the Senate amendments 
and agree to the conference asked for by the Senate.
  That means that the Senate wants to conference on this bill. They in 
fact do not want to accept the House-passed bill. I think I can safely 
say that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and I, clearly agree 
that in this crisis, we should provide the District government with the 
maximum Federal payment, which in this case is $667 million. The Senate 
cut that amount by $20 million. I want to bring that up in the 
conference. I think it is very important. And I know that the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and I agree with the enforcement mechanism, 
that is, if the District government does not make the necessary cuts as 
directed by the conference agreement, that amount of money will be 
taken out of the following year's Federal payment.
  There are other issues in the Senate bill that I disagree with, and I 
believe the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley] also disagree with those issues.
  I guess it is like a broken record, but I want to repeat it: We 
cannot have it all our way, because the Senate wants a conference with 
the House. If they wanted to accept our bill, they could have accepted 
our bill. I am for cuts in spending, but I cannot argue with the Senate 
conferees to bring the Federal payment up to the House level, to put 
back in the enforcement mechanism, to strike certain other provisions. 
We just cannot have it all our way.
  Now, I know that a lot of Members feel that $150 million is the 
appropriate number. I assume the Senate thinks that $75 million is the 
appropriate number. But the way we have been doing business around here 
is to negotiate these differences. We are all on the same page as it 
relates to reductions in spending--the District has to reduce spending.
  The recitation of all the problems of the District, which I fully 
acknowledge, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] have given, do not move us a step 
further in coming to some resolve on the issue and helping the District 
through a crisis in fiscal year 1995. That is all that I am saying. And 
because we, after careful consideration, picked $150 million, the 
legislative process allowed the Senate in their wisdom to pick $75 
million. We want a lot of things done in conference so we have to have 
flexibility. Maybe $141 million is the correct number, but I do not 
know at this point. But to say that we are going to stand pat and ask 
the Senate to yield on this and all of these other items is not in the 
real world. If the Senate wanted to accept our bill, they could have 
done that, but they didn't.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to strongly associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose the motion to instruct, but, as my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize from the way we 
have worked together and from my own criticisms of the District, I 
certainly do not do so because I believe that the District should not 
make whatever cuts are necessary to sustain its viability. If my 
colleagues are disappointed that the Congress has come to this moment, 
surely they can imagine that I am far more disappointed than they.
  I urge my colleagues to sustain the bipartisanship that produced the 
compromise in the House version of the bill, and to show their good 
faith by treating the D.C. appropriation in the way that we treat other 
appropriations. Of course, that is always to allow the chairman, 
particularly in difficult circumstances, the flexibility that is 
needed.
  This should especially be the case with the gentleman from 
California, Chairman Dixon, who has managed to hold the District's feet 
to the fire with the GAO report and with very tough hearings, without 
gratuitously hurting the Capital City.
  The chairman needs flexibility and negotiating room precisely because 
of real differences that matter to both sides in the Senate and House 
bills. I submit, Madam Speaker, that you simply cannot negotiate if you 
take the most important item off the table.
  Now, the $150 million figure is a figure I embraced as part of the 
compromise. But I must say, Madam Speaker, it is in the nature of 
auction bargaining that we got to this figure. We did not get to this 
figure by relating it to the District's programs or to its expenses. We 
do not know if the figure will toss the District over the side so that 
we have to pick up the pieces. All we know is that we had to pick a 
future, and that is the figure they came up with. I challenge anybody 
to itemize that figure and justify that figure in any particular terms.
  At the same time, I am not prepared to say in conference something 
close to this figure should not obtain. All I am prepared to say is 
that it makes no sense to go to conference with this item inflexibly 
tied to the chairman.
  I say also to my colleagues that this is no time for piling on the 
District. It really did take a lot to begin to get the District's 
attention, more than should have been required. But can anyone doubt 
now that we have gotten their attention?
  This motion to instruct might have been more appropriate had not 
Members read the front page of the Washington Post this morning. We 
finally got the headline that we have been waiting for. That headline 
says that the District is moving ahead, even before we go to 
conference, much less out of conference and pass the bill, we are told 
that Mayor Kelly will do 2,500 buyouts, which in my judgment is the way 
to quickly downsize the government and begin to get the revenue cuts 
the Congress wants and the District needs.
  We are told that the Mayor believes there are going to have to be 
even tougher decisions made, cuts in AFDC and general public 
assistance, at a time when a very large proportion of the D.C. 
residents depend upon these benefits.

                              {time}  1210

  She is seeking council approval of legislation to reorganize D.C. 
General, and that is where much emphasis needs to be placed. I am going 
to, myself, be introducing legislation in this Congress that may be 
necessary. And I am going to be pressing her, and the council, to move 
swiftly at each step along the way.
  I am going to involve myself in D.C. affairs, given what has happened 
during the course of this year, in a way I have never done before. I 
never intend for the Congress to be placed in this position again.
  We see the kind of success that ought to encourage the House to 
recognize what it has achieved. For example, the District is having 
some success with an entirely new public safety fee to generate 
revenue. Now, generating revenue in a district that has the high taxes 
the District has took some creativity; 60 percent of our budget goes to 
schools and cops alone. And we know what the crime situation is like in 
the District. We have had great outlays for police. Now we have put a 
fee, not only on residents, but on big entities to say, help us by 
paying some share of these costs that have escalated.
  I want my colleagues to understand that the differences between the 
House and the Senate bill are not easily fungible, even in numbers. 
They want $20 million less than the Federal payment. The chairman knows 
that the District is running out of cash. Our compromise with our 
colleagues in the minority also recognized that if we take cash from 
the District, we are really cutting off all of our noses to spite our 
faces. They are so cash short. We do not know how the Senate got to 
where it wanted cash from the Federal payment instead, but it wants 
only half as many cuts.
  How the two Houses should mesh should relate not to what the House 
has decided, not to what the Senate has decided but to what is in the 
best interest of the innocent bystanders, the residents of the District 
of Columbia, who could not get into this struggle, but who are going to 
have to pay the price. And that and that alone ought to be the standard 
that guides a vote on this matter today.
  Should the emphasis be on providing cash so that we get more money 
from the Senate in order to keep the District from perhaps going belly 
up? Or do we need the motion to instruct to pound home the necessity of 
the cuts? Which is most important should guide how we react to this 
matter.
  The motion to instruct, in my judgment, is far from necessary. 
Already we are told that the Mayor is close to $100 million in cuts. 
The gentleman from California, Chairman Dixon, said during debate on 
the bill that we could need even more in savings than we have. We do 
not have any idea what is the underlying basis for the $150 million 
figure. But my objection is not to the House version. I agreed to that 
compromise. My objection is to weakening the chairman in negotiations 
with the Senate. All this motion to instruct does, is to undermine his 
negotiating strength and, ultimately, the House position.
  May I remind the House that it is customary to leave a chairman some 
room to represent vigorously, as the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon] will, and Members know he will, vigorously, the House position, 
to leave a chairman room to then negotiate back and forth. That is what 
is customary.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] and the ranking member 
himself, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], have put in place 
extraordinary requirements, including quarterly reports. The kind of 
monitoring of the District that the Congress is going to be doing 
during the next fiscal year is unprecedented. Nobody can have any doubt 
at this point that the necessary cuts will be made, given the head 
start the District has already made and given what is in the bill right 
now to monitor the District by Members sitting on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Madam Speaker, finally, may I say, I have tried throughout this 
debate to be an advocate for those who I represent without being an 
apologist for the District of Columbia. I am more deeply disappointed, 
than any Member of this House, that we have gotten to the point we are 
today. I can assure the House, however, that the District, finally, now 
gets it.
  Let us go to conference with a problem-solving attitude, not with a 
punitive motion to instruct.
  Mr. DIXON. Madam Speaker, I have no further questions for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time, subject to the fact that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] would like to close.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to just state a couple of 
the differences between the House position and the Senate position and 
restate why I think it is so critical that the House stick to its 
position.
  First of all, the House language that requires the $150 million 
spending cut by the District of Columbia provides that the District of 
Columbia cannot cut its own rainy day fund in order to arrive at that 
$150 million cut.
  In other words, the district has set aside about $22 million for a 
rainy day fund. We encourage that. We applaud that, but we do not want 
the district to have the ability to wipe that out and count that as 
savings. The Senate does not have that requirement.
  Mr. DIXON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Madam Speaker, there has been some confusion about the 
rainy day fund. Just as I maintain and the gentleman maintains and 
certainly the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] 
maintains, the District's budget at this moment is cosmetically 
balanced on paper. The rainy day fund is actually misnamed. There is 
not any money that is left over that they can use. It is clear, from 
all of their finances, that they will have to use the rainy day fund 
money in 1995.
  It was a mechanism put in place by Chairman Clark and the city 
council to allow them to exercise some control over a portion of the 
District's money.
  I am sorry they called it a rainy day fund, because that implies it 
is a surplus that they can do something with on a rainy day.
  The reasons I recommended to the committee that we not involve 
ourselves in the rainy day fund were one, it is not a surplus, and, 
two, it was an arrangement worked out by the city council and the Mayor 
that gives the city council some control over how some of the money 
will be spent.
  So I am not arguing with the gentleman, but I just want to correct 
the gentleman's statement and explain that it is not a rainy day fund. 
In excluding the rainy day fund from the $150 million spending cut, it 
was my intention and the committee's intention not to interfere with 
home rule and the agreement that had been made at the local level. The 
logical thing for the executive, the Mayor in this case, to do is to 
say that ``Congress directed that these cuts be made and, therefore, I 
will take it out of the rainy day fund, and, Mr. Councilman, you have 
nothing to do with it.''
  I was only preserving that shield of home rule. I am not arguing with 
the gentleman. I just wanted to make that explanation.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for the clarification on that.
  But it just further points out the fact that there is all kinds of 
gimmickry within the budgeting, that we are not getting balanced 
budgets, that a rainy day fund is not a rainy day fund. The $22 million 
set aside is not set aside. And this is going to continue. This will 
continue unless we stick to the House position, which does provide some 
discipline.
  The Senate does not require that if the District deficit spends that 
they lose dollar for dollar in the following year appropriation bill. 
There is no discipline in the Senate position.

                              {time}  1220

  There is no discipline in the Senate position. So we have to stick to 
our position. I remind my colleagues with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dixon], and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
supported this bipartisan agreement and, in fact, argued in favor of 
this agreement in the House.
  I believe there is some flexibility in our position. I have been told 
over and over that home rule is the most critical issue in this debate. 
The House position supports home rule. The Senate position does not. So 
there is some flexibility. We are saying we have got to stick to the 
House level of cuts and at the same time we honor the principle of home 
rule that has been held up as such a Holy Grail in all of this debate. 
That is the House position.
  Finally, I would remind my colleagues of the closeness of the vote. 
Three votes, one, two, three votes. If we reduce the spending cut, then 
we stand to lose the whole agreement. It could very well go down, the 
budget, entirely. Then we have really got a problem.
  If we back away from our position, we lose our ability to get the 
financial discipline that we all agree is necessary; that the District 
of Columbia has not taken upon itself, that the House has decided and 
deemed that we should.
  Madam Speaker, I urge that my colleagues support this motion to 
instruct the conferees.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). 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 offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. 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 316, 
nays 101, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 358]

                               YEAS--316

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--101

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bacchus (FL)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennelly
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews (TX)
     Carr
     Chapman
     Doolittle
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Hayes
     Hoyer
     Klein
     Laughlin
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McDade
     Rangel
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1242

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McDade for, with Mr. Rangel against.

  Messers. BERMAN, TOWNS, MATSUI, and FLAKE changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GEJDENSON, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. THORNTON, and Mrs. MORELLA changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Dixon, Stokes, and Durbin, 
Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Skaggs, Ms. Pelosi, and Messrs. Obey, Walsh, Istook, 
Bonilla, and McDade.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________