[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.




