[House Report 104-594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-594
_______________________________________________________________________
Union Calendar No. 294
REPORT ON THE SUBDIVISION OF BUDGET TOTALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
SUBMITTED BY MR. LIVINGSTON, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
May 23, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana,
Chairman
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
TOM BEVILL, Alabama RALPH REGULA, Ohio
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California
CHARLES WILSON, Texas JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
JULIAN C. DIXON, California FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
VIC FAZIO, California TOM DeLAY, Texas
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina JIM KOLBE, Arizona
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas RON PACKARD, California
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas JAMES T. WALSH, New York
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
NANCY PELOSI, California ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HENRY BONILLA, Texas
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California DAN MILLER, Florida
NITA M. LOWEY, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York FRANK RIGGS, California
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
Jersey
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,
Washington
JIM BUNN, Oregon
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff
Director
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, May 23, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on
Appropriations, I submit herewith the Committee's report on the
subdivision of budget authority and outlays. This report is
consistent with the ``Allocation of Spending Responsibility to
House Committees Pursuant to Section 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act--Fiscal Year 1997'' beginning on page
158 of House Report 104-575 to accompany H. Con. Res. 178,
setting forth the Congressional Budget for the United States
Government for the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,
and 2002 as adopted by the House on May 16, 1996. The authority
for this allocation, which is based on the House passed budget
resolution, is section 3 of H. Res. 435. This section makes the
subdivision of this allocation effective for all purposes of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The Committee on Appropriations has been allocated $494.995
billion in discretionary budget authority and $535.139 billion
in outlays. The Committee, in distributing this among the 13
regular appropriations bills, has remained within the
allocation.
Sincerely,
Bob Livingston, Chairman.
Union Calendar No. 294
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-594
_______________________________________________________________________
REPORT ON THE SUBDIVISION OF BUDGET TOTALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
_______
May 23, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Livingston, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
SUBDIVISION OF BUDGET TOTALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report on the subdivision of budget totals for fiscal year 1997
pursuant to section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall No. 1
Date: May 23, 1996.
Measure: FY 1997 Sec. 602(b) Subdivision.
Motion by: Mr. Obey.
Description of motion: Reduce budget authority and outlays
in the National Defense function and increase the discretionary
domestic allocations by the same amount.
Results: Rejected 19 to 29.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Coleman Mr. Bunn
Mr. Dixon Mr. Callahan
Mr. Durbin Mr. Dickey
Mr. Foglietta Mr. Forbes
Mr. Hefner Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pelosi Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Sabo Mr. Livingston
Mr. Serrano Mr. McDade
Mr. Skaggs Mr. Miller
Mr. Stokes Mr. Murtha
Mr. Thornton Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Torres Mr. Neumann
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Packard
Mr. Yates Mr. Parker
Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wilson
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall No. 2
Date: May 23, 1996.
Measure: FY 1997 Sec. 602(b) Subdivision.
Motion by: Mr. Livingston.
Description of motion: Approve Sec. 602(b) Subdivision.
Results: Adopted 28 to 20.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bonilla Mr. Bevill
Mr. Bunn Mr. Coleman
Mr. Callahan Mr. Dixon
Mr. Dickey Mr. Durbin
Mr. Forbes Mr. Foglietta
Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Hefner
Mr. Hobson Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Kingston Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Knollenberg Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Lewis Mr. Murtha
Mr. Lightfoot Mr. Obey
Mr. Livingston Ms. Pelosi
Mr. McDade Mr. Sabo
Mr. Miller Mr. Serrano
Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Skaggs
Mr. Neumann Mr. Stokes
Mr. Packard Mr. Thornton
Mr. Parker Mr. Torres
Mr. Porter Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Regula Mr. Yates
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wilson
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY
The allocation presented for the Committee's approval today
is ``a day late and more than a dollar short.'' Unless it is
substantially modified, it will get us right back into the
highly divisive and contentious process of vetoes and
threatened government shutdowns that I hoped was put behind us
when we finally passed the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act
just last month.
We are already well behind our schedule for this year.
Under the law, the Appropriations Committee should have had a
budget allocation based on the FY 1997 Budget Resolution
Conference Agreement by April 15th. But, for the second year in
a row, the Budget Resolution is far behind schedule. As of this
morning, it is still pending in the Senate with the clear
prospect that further significant changes to the level of
discretionary spending will be adopted.
The time of this Committee might be better used today by
passing a resolution imploring the House leadership to take
steps to ensure that the Budget Committee meet its obligations
under the schedule specified by law.
Concerning the substance of the Chairman's 602(b) proposal,
I sincerely regret that our Committee is not continuing the
spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we enjoyed with the
passage of the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act just last
month. Unfortunately, because this allocation so closely tracks
the unrealistic and ideological stance recommended by the House
Budget Committee, we are once again faced with a wholly
unrealistic level of discretionary funding for the priorities
we face here at home.
There has been a great deal of confusion in the press about
what the 1997 House Budget Resolution did and further confusion
about what the Chairman's proposed 1997 602(d) allocation would
or would not do. This deserves greater clarity.
We had a very difficult time last year. Most of the
domestic budget was not agreed to until most of the fiscal year
was over. Getting agreement between the House, the Senate, and
the White House was an enormously difficult task--one which the
chairman deserves great credit for.
That hard-won agreement could provide us with a very useful
benchmark to build on and could help prevent this year from
becoming the quagmire that we fell into last. The question that
I think we should ask when we look at this allocation is ``Will
it permit that bipartisan compromise to go forward past the
last 5 months of fiscal 1996, or are we back in the middle of
the same old argument for fiscal year 1997?''
Although the Republican allocation is advertised in some
circles as a freeze of 1996 levels, the bottom line is that $6
billion in one-time offsets that made the Fiscal 1996 agreement
possible have been left out of the FY 1997 House Republican
plan. The Budget Committee has prohibited the Appropriations
Committee from repeating these offsets in FY 1997, but has not
made up the difference in higher allocation to the
Appropriations Committee.
Several billions more in other normal accounting
adjustments also have been left out.
The bottom line is that we are working with an allocation
that is about $8 to $9 billion short of what is needed for a
hard freeze of domestic programs, and is about $14 or $15
billion short of funding the same level of services agreed to
in the FY 1996 compromise.
Make no mistake about it, the levels in the plan adopted
today are still far below 1996 levels. If these key domestic
subcommittees are ultimately forced to produce bills with these
levels, these bills will have great difficulty passing the
House, will be unacceptable in the Senate, and will never be
signed into law.
Here are some specifics.
Unless the allocation is amended, the Labor-HHS-Education
allocation will be $2.9 billion below the hard freeze level.
And a hard freeze would mean decreased enrollment in Headstart,
very serious disruptions in the research program at NIH, and
laying off more than a thousand employees in the Social
Security Administration.
Unless the allocation is amended, the Agriculture
Subcommittee will be about $1.5 billion short of a hard freeze
under the Livingston allocation. We are going to see very deep
cuts in the WIC program. We are going to see programs like
rural water and sewer absolutely clobbered.
Unless the allocation is amended, the Commerce-Justice-
State-Judiciary bill is not going to have the money to staff
the new prisons that are being completed.
Unless the allocation is amended, the domestic programs in
Energy and Water Subcommittee will be about $1.3 billion below
a hard freeze. That will mean serious cutbacks in flood
protection programs among other priorities.
Unless the allocation is amended, the Interior Subcommittee
will be more than a billion dollars below a hard freeze. That
means that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle
will finally get their shot at energy research, but it will
probably also mean significant cuts in the Park Service and in
the National Forests.
Unless the allocation is amended, the VA-HUD Subcommittee
will be in a similar position. We will see some unpleasant
choices involving veterans hospitals, the Space program and
environmental protection.
Unless the allocation is amended, the Transportation bill
is going to pose a choice between eliminating Air Traffic
Control and Air Safety positions at the FAA or cutting the
spending authority for highway construction below last year's
level. I would submit that both of these activities are vital
to the safety of our citizens and the health of our economy and
are worth the investment.
Unless the allocation is amended, the Treasury-Postal
Service Subcommittee allocation will simply not permit the new
measures planned for federal buildings to go forward without
making very deep cuts in other areas. We will probably see
layoffs in IRS staffing and that will mean lower rates of
collection on delinquent taxes and a net increase in the
deficit. That is a stupid choice, but one this allocation
almost ensures.
The alternative offered by Committee Democrats was based on
the discretionary spending alternative to the House Budget
Resolution proposed by the Conservative Coalition Democrats. It
fully conformed to the discretionary spending levels called for
in the FY 1997 House Budget Resolution and doesn't spend one
dime more than the plan which the Committee adopted.
It would reallocate the resources available in a much more
equitable and sensible manner. For the same amount of money,
this Democratic proposal:
--is better for education;
--is better for the environment;
--is better for veterans;
--is better for rural America;
--is better for our National Parks;
--is better for highway construction and air safety;
and is better for a host of other important priorities of the
American People.
To pay for these priorities, our plan would scale back the
$12.8 billion increase in military spending over the Pentagon's
request by $8.8 billion, leaving a military spending level
still will above the Pentagon's request. This $8.8 billion in
budget authority (and $3.2 billion in outlays) would be
redistributed to the domestic subcommittees to help fill
shortfalls in critical, common-sense, national priorities that
Americans expect us to take care of.
Even after this redistribution, we would still have big
gaps. This will not get us all the way back to a hard freeze
and there still would be about $4 billion less in Domestic
Spending than the Conservative Coalition called for. We will be
short, particularly on the outlay side with virtually every
subcommittee.
While not perfect, our proposed reallocation reflects the
common sense priorities of American families who support
education, the environment, roads and bridges, health research,
National Parks, clean water, and a host of other domestic
programs. Our plan would continue the compromise we thought we
reached last month to call off the assault on these programs.
We believe our plan is far preferable to the wildly unrealistic
proposal being offered by the chairman.
Dave Obey,
Ranking Democratic Member.
ALTERNATE 602(b) ALLOCATION TOTALS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA Outlay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture................................... $13,800 $13,702
Commerce, Justice State....................... 28,210 27,074
District of Columbia.......................... 718 718
Energy & Water Development.................... 19,326 19,091
Foreign Operations............................ 11,950 13,311
Interior...................................... 12,500 12,953
Labor, HHS, Education......................... 67,833 69,751
Legislative:
All except Senate......................... 1,703 1,719
Senate items.............................. 485 460
Total Legislative....................... 2,188 2,179
Military Construction......................... 10,033 10,430
National Security............................. 237,783 240,977
Transportation................................ 12,121 35,425
Treasury, Postal Service...................... 11,463 11,177
VA, HUD, Independent Agencies................. 64,954 78,351
Reserve....................................... 2,116 ...........
-------------------------
Total................................... 494,995 535,139
=========================
House FY 1997 Budget Resolution............... 494,995 535,139
Crime Trust Fund (Included above are the
following amounts from the Crime Trust Fund):
Commerce, Justice, State Judiciary........ 4,525 2,951
Labor, HHS and Education...................... 61 38
Treasury-Postal Service....................... 97 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE ALLOCATION OFFERED BY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS, COMPARED TO
ALLOCATION ADOPTED BY COMMITTEE
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Non-defense
-------------------------------------------
BA Outlays BA Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture................. ......... ......... +1,471 +834
Commerce, Justice, State.... 0 0 +325 +194
District of Columbia........ ......... ......... 0 0
Energy & Water Development.. -243 -361 +1,280 +517
Foreign Operations.......... ......... ......... 0 0
Interior.................... ......... ......... +1,100 +556
Labor, HHS, Education....... ......... ......... +2,940 +271
Legislative................. ......... ......... 0 0
Military Construction....... 0 0 0 0
National Security........... -8,557 -2,839 0 0
Transportation.............. 0 0 +321 +297
Treasury, Postal Service.... 0 0 +563 +285
VA, HUD, Independent
Agencies................... 0 0 +800 +256
Reserve..................... ......... ......... 0 0
-------------------------------------------
Total................. -8,800 -3,200 +8,800 +3,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A letter sent to the Committee by the Office of Management
and Budget made the following assessment of how the allocations
which were adopted could be expected to affect programs within
the jurisdiction of each of the following subcommittees:
Labor-HHS-Education: The allocation is about $6.7 billion
below the President's request, and $2.5 billion below the
levels needed to sustain the 1996 program level. It could mean
major cuts below 1996 in such priorities as Title I--Education
for the Disadvantaged, Pell Grants college scholarships, and
the Summer Youth Employment program.
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies: The allocation would
jeopardize our efforts to protect public health and the
environment by maintaining environmental enforcement by the
EPA; meeting our international commitments to cut greenhouse
gas emissions; and spurring new technologies to protect public
health, reduce costs, and create new jobs. It also would not
provide increases for new Drinking Water State Revolving Funds,
fully fund the Clear Water Act State Revolving Funds, or fund
the President's initiative to stimulate the development of
``Brownfield'' sites in distressed communities.
Commerce-Justice-State: The allocation would force two
harsh options--(1) drastically cut the President's anti-crime
requests, or (2) cut deeply into critical technology and
assessed contributions to international organizations. In
jeopardy are the crime programs to put 100,000 more police on
the street and beef up FBI criminal investigations and law
enforcement technology improvements, DEA drug enforcement, U.S.
Attorneys' prosecutorial efforts, prisoner incarceration, and
border control. To protect those, the Subcommittee would have
to slash high technology, such as the Advanced Technology
Program and Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, planning for
the decennial census, and Weather Service modernization.
Finally, the allocation threatens the nation's assessed
contributions to international organizations, especially the
United Nations.
Interior: The allocation jeopardizes the President's
requests for the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, the Everglades
Restoration initiative, and other key programs in regions with
important needs. It threatens to underfund our parks and public
lands. And it also could devastate such Presidential
initiatives that promote energy conservation as the Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles and the Climate Change Action
Plan. For Native Americans, the allocation threatens key
programs in elementary and secondary education for Indian
children, law enforcement and public safety, road maintenance,
foster care and other child welfare programs, general
assistance to needy families, and higher education
scholarships.
Foreign Operations: The allocation, $1 billion below the
President's request and $350 million below the 1996 level,
would threaten America's international leadership in critical
bilateral and multilateral activities. In particular, it likely
would mean deep cuts in U.S. contributions to multilateral
banks, severely undermining the achievement of important U.S.
security and economic objectives through those institutions and
diminishing other nations' willingness to cooperate
internationally with us.
Agriculture: The allocation would mean an 11 percent cut
from the constrained levels of 1996, leading to severe and
imprudent cuts in high-priority programs, such as the Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) program; any cut from the
President's request would preclude achieving full participation
in WIC. In addition, an 11 percent cut in water and wastewater
grants would translate into just $325 million in assistance to
the lowest-income rural communities--45 percent below the
President's request.
Energy and Water: The allocation would mean a $1.5 billion
cut in non-defense programs in the Energy Department, Army
Corps of Engineers, and other agencies. The likely result: deep
cuts in solar and renewables research, and undesirable cuts in
university, biological, and basic physics research. A major cut
in fusion research will force the shutdown of major research
facilities and U.S. withdrawal from international fusion
research projects, thereby threatening other U.S.-led
international science projects.
Treasury-Postal: At $1.9 billion below the President's
request, the allocation likely would mean significant cuts for
the Internal Revenue Service and, in particular, the Tax
Systems Modernization program--a crucial effort to bring the
IRS' paperbound processes into the electronic age and greatly
improve the productivity of its workforce.
Transportation: The allocation would jeopardize the
President's requests for transportation safety programs. In
particular, the requests for FAA operations and FAA capital
acquisition programs are designed to enhance aviation safety.
District of Columbia: The allocation does not accommodate
the President's request for a modest $52 million increase in
the Federal payment to the District of Columbia pension
system--a necessary step to fulfill the Federal Government's
responsibility for part of its pension liability and help the
District get its financial house in order.
Defense: While the President's budget fully funds our
nation's defense needs, the nearly $12 billion that this
allocation alone would add is unnecessary and will not
contribute materially to the currently high levels of military
readiness. Rather than spend money on programs that we do not
need now, the President's budget provides more funds for
modernization at the turn of the century--when the most
advanced next generation of defense technologies is ready for
production.
Military Construction: The allocation, $900 million above
the President's request, supports many projects that are not
needed and are not in the Defense Department's out-year plan.